Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The left and right- a few issues?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
Jun 6, 2013, 12:29:57 PM6/6/13
to
OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
coordination, and equality.
And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
live and work in another part of the world.
I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction? I've
got sympathy with the rich as long as they're "live and let live". But
it seems for some money isn't enough, they want to dictate was you and I
can and can't do.
This suggests to me that what the right call a "free market economy"
isn't anyhting of the kind- it's big bully writes the tune we dance to.
And if Big Bully wants state help, then that's different to the dole or
whatever, it's supporting business. I'd guess that a lot of these
trumpteers of "free enterprise" would actually go to the wall if
subjected to a real free market- as opposed to a fixed one that their
government friends set up for their benefit.
coordination, and equality.
And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
live and work in another part of the world.
I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction? I've
got sympathy with the rich as long as they're "live and let live". But
it seems for some money isn't enough, they want to dictate was you and I
can and can't do.
This suggests to me that what the right call a "free market economy"
isn't anyhting of the kind- it's big bully writes the tune we dance to.
And if Big Bully wants state help, then that's different to the dole or
whatever, it's supporting business. I'd guess that a lot of these
trumpteers of "free enterprise" would actually go to the wall if
subjected to a real free market- as opposed to a fixed one that their
government friends set up for their benefit.
Mountain Jew
Jun 6, 2013, 1:14:53 PM6/6/13
to
In article <koqd5k$hd2$1...@dont-email.me>,
Isn't if closely tied to the right's programing to keep the sheeple
in their "god fearing" ways?
You know don't seek empowerment, be afraid to challenge "authority"
in any form. there's always Pie in the Sky, well, when you die.
Let us prey!
--
Money ; what a concept!
in their "god fearing" ways?
You know don't seek empowerment, be afraid to challenge "authority"
in any form. there's always Pie in the Sky, well, when you die.
Let us prey!
--
Money ; what a concept!
Ste
Jun 6, 2013, 4:39:36 PM6/6/13
to
On Jun 6, 5:29 pm, Andy Wainwright
> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
> live and work in another part of the world.
>
> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
Because they're hypocrites! They *aren't* small state. They are big
authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
> I've
> got sympathy with the rich as long as they're "live and let live".
Who are these people?
> But
> it seems for some money isn't enough, they want to dictate was you and I
> can and can't do.
They wouldn't have such disproportionate wealth to themselves if they
didn't dictate to you and I.
> This suggests to me that what the right call a "free market economy"
> isn't anyhting of the kind- it's big bully writes the tune we dance to.
> And if Big Bully wants state help, then that's different to the dole or
> whatever, it's supporting business. I'd guess that a lot of these
> trumpteers of "free enterprise" would actually go to the wall if
> subjected to a real free market- as opposed to a fixed one that their
> government friends set up for their benefit.
Quite.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
> coordination, and equality.
>
> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
Freedom and liberty *for the rich*, of course.
> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
> coordination, and equality.
>
> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
> live and work in another part of the world.
>
> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
> I've
> got sympathy with the rich as long as they're "live and let live".
> But
> it seems for some money isn't enough, they want to dictate was you and I
> can and can't do.
didn't dictate to you and I.
> This suggests to me that what the right call a "free market economy"
> isn't anyhting of the kind- it's big bully writes the tune we dance to.
> And if Big Bully wants state help, then that's different to the dole or
> whatever, it's supporting business. I'd guess that a lot of these
> trumpteers of "free enterprise" would actually go to the wall if
> subjected to a real free market- as opposed to a fixed one that their
> government friends set up for their benefit.
abelard
Jun 6, 2013, 5:56:52 PM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 6, 5:29 pm, Andy Wainwright
><andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
>> coordination, and equality.
>>
>> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>
>Freedom and liberty *for the rich*, of course.
of course your aim is freedom and liberty for none...
>> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
>> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
>> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
>> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
>> live and work in another part of the world.
>>
>> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
>> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
>> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
>
>Because they're hypocrites! They *aren't* small state. They are big
>authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
>government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
playing the same tune...
it was written in 1944...
meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
wealthy...
except of course in those backwaters that act on the delusions
of envy and class war promoted your cult...
wrote:
>On Jun 6, 5:29 pm, Andy Wainwright
><andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
>> coordination, and equality.
>>
>> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>
>Freedom and liberty *for the rich*, of course.
>> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
>> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
>> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
>> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
>> live and work in another part of the world.
>>
>> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
>> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
>> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
>
>Because they're hypocrites! They *aren't* small state. They are big
>authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
>government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
playing the same tune...
it was written in 1944...
meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
wealthy...
except of course in those backwaters that act on the delusions
of envy and class war promoted your cult...
AndyW
Jun 7, 2013, 2:47:20 AM6/7/13
to
On 06/06/2013 17:29, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
> coordination, and equality.
>
> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a more accurate representation. IMO
> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
> coordination, and equality.
>
> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
Andy
Ste
Jun 7, 2013, 3:01:53 AM6/7/13
to
On Jun 6, 10:56 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
> meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
> wealthy...
Not in Britain they haven't. Wages are lower than they were 10 years
ago. Jobs are more insecure. Pensions are being wiped out. Personal
debt is higher than ever. Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
is also the case across the developed world.
> except of course in those backwaters that act on the delusions
> of envy and class war promoted your cult...
You've got to be deluded to think that it isn't a class war.
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 6, 5:29 pm, Andy Wainwright
> ><andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
> >> coordination, and equality.
>
> >> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>
> >Freedom and liberty *for the rich*, of course.
>
> of course your aim is freedom and liberty for none...
>
> >> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
> >> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
> >> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
> >> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
> >> live and work in another part of the world.
>
> >> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
> >> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
> >> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
>
> >Because they're hypocrites! They *aren't* small state. They are big
> >authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
> >government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
>
> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
> playing the same tune...
> it was written in 1944...
A year or so before they kicked out the Tory prime minister who won
>
> >On Jun 6, 5:29 pm, Andy Wainwright
> ><andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
> >> coordination, and equality.
>
> >> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>
> >Freedom and liberty *for the rich*, of course.
>
> of course your aim is freedom and liberty for none...
>
> >> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
> >> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
> >> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
> >> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
> >> live and work in another part of the world.
>
> >> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
> >> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
> >> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
>
> >Because they're hypocrites! They *aren't* small state. They are big
> >authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
> >government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
>
> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
> playing the same tune...
> it was written in 1944...
the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
> meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
> wealthy...
ago. Jobs are more insecure. Pensions are being wiped out. Personal
debt is higher than ever. Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
is also the case across the developed world.
> except of course in those backwaters that act on the delusions
> of envy and class war promoted your cult...
abelard
Jun 7, 2013, 4:41:08 AM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 00:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
indeed, there are always plentiful fools available for you to con...
then they once more wake up to the reality you produce...
and you're out for another decade or more
the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
meanwhile the nhs is continually in a mess of corruption and
inefficiency...
and then there is n.i.c.e....the shamelessly named death panels...
>> meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
>> wealthy...
>
>Not in Britain they haven't. Wages are lower than they were 10 years
naturally, fascist 'new' labour have destroyed the economy as usual
>ago. Jobs are more insecure. Pensions are being wiped out.
by brown the clown...they were the best in europe when major
left office...
the tories are once more seeking to raise/fix them...
socialists don't care about the old...too many of them have learned
enough from life by that time...not to vote for socialists
> Personal
>debt is higher than ever.
your 'economics' is as daft to non-existent...as your nostrums...
>Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
>but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
>is also the case across the developed world.
your envy is rank foolishness...a 'rich' man can eat no more
meals a day than a poor man....
and it is mostly the poor who now waddle around grossly
over-weight and thus with lower life expectations
'new' labour always spends the seed corn...it taxes anything
useful(profitable) until there is nothing productive left to
tax...
and then it borrows until no-one will lend it any more...
>> except of course in those backwaters that act on the delusions
>> of envy and class war promoted your cult...
>
>You've got to be deluded to think that it isn't a class war.
only a fool believes in class war...
go live in n. korea if you believe your tripe...or even in cuba...
i do of course note, that as you're a marxist..that you carefully
dodge all issues
meanwhile wally milipede is quickly trying the usual tap dance,
as socialism loses yet another argument...
your cult is dying...as it will continue to die every time it is
faced by reality...
wrote:
then they once more wake up to the reality you produce...
and you're out for another decade or more
the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
meanwhile the nhs is continually in a mess of corruption and
inefficiency...
and then there is n.i.c.e....the shamelessly named death panels...
>> meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
>> wealthy...
>
>Not in Britain they haven't. Wages are lower than they were 10 years
>ago. Jobs are more insecure. Pensions are being wiped out.
left office...
the tories are once more seeking to raise/fix them...
socialists don't care about the old...too many of them have learned
enough from life by that time...not to vote for socialists
> Personal
>debt is higher than ever.
>Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
>but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
>is also the case across the developed world.
meals a day than a poor man....
and it is mostly the poor who now waddle around grossly
over-weight and thus with lower life expectations
'new' labour always spends the seed corn...it taxes anything
useful(profitable) until there is nothing productive left to
tax...
and then it borrows until no-one will lend it any more...
>> except of course in those backwaters that act on the delusions
>> of envy and class war promoted your cult...
>
>You've got to be deluded to think that it isn't a class war.
go live in n. korea if you believe your tripe...or even in cuba...
i do of course note, that as you're a marxist..that you carefully
dodge all issues
meanwhile wally milipede is quickly trying the usual tap dance,
as socialism loses yet another argument...
your cult is dying...as it will continue to die every time it is
faced by reality...
Osric
Jun 7, 2013, 12:17:32 PM6/7/13
to
>
> the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
>
beverage report, he was a little more ambivalent about the Beveridge
Report however. Perhaps you're right, he may well have been so pissed he
made the same mistake you did.
--
Osric
THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
abelard
Jun 7, 2013, 1:37:38 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:17:32 +0100, Osric <os...@bollocks.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
>>
>
>
>I'm certain Churchill would have had no problem whatsoever with a
>beverage report, he was a little more ambivalent about the Beveridge
>Report however. Perhaps you're right, he may well have been so pissed he
>made the same mistake you did.
i'm glad your comments meet your talent...
>
>>
>> the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
>>
>
>
>I'm certain Churchill would have had no problem whatsoever with a
>beverage report, he was a little more ambivalent about the Beveridge
>Report however. Perhaps you're right, he may well have been so pissed he
>made the same mistake you did.
you just keep looking for speelings...much beeter than your
national socialist rahvings
anything that keeps you off the streets
Ste
Jun 7, 2013, 3:53:17 PM6/7/13
to
On Jun 7, 9:41 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
basis. Every instance where these public services have been turned
over to the private sector, inefficiency has gone up, disasters have
gone up, and costs have gone up. IT, railways, gas, electricity, you
name it, a vista of calamity and blown budgets for the taxpayer and
the ordinary consumer, whilst each and every year bosses walk away
with bigger pocketfuls of cash - and paying only pennies in tax to
boot. I think people are sick and tired of hearing about "public
sector inefficiency", whilst private sector fat cats tear our schools,
hospitals, and railways apart and charge us for the privilege.
> >Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
> >but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
> >is also the case across the developed world.
>
> your envy is rank foolishness...a 'rich' man can eat no more
> meals a day than a poor man....
You tell that to people queueing at food banks.
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 00:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
> >> playing the same tune...
> >> it was written in 1944...
>
> >A year or so before they kicked out the Tory prime minister who won
> >the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
> >for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
>
> indeed, there are always plentiful fools available for you to con...
> then they once more wake up to the reality you produce...
> and you're out for another decade or more
>
> the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
>
> meanwhile the nhs is continually in a mess of corruption and
> inefficiency...
> and then there is n.i.c.e....the shamelessly named death panels...
Yes, we still hear about "public sector inefficiency" on a daily
> wrote:
>
> >> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
> >> playing the same tune...
> >> it was written in 1944...
>
> >A year or so before they kicked out the Tory prime minister who won
> >the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
> >for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
>
> indeed, there are always plentiful fools available for you to con...
> then they once more wake up to the reality you produce...
> and you're out for another decade or more
>
> the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
>
> meanwhile the nhs is continually in a mess of corruption and
> inefficiency...
> and then there is n.i.c.e....the shamelessly named death panels...
basis. Every instance where these public services have been turned
over to the private sector, inefficiency has gone up, disasters have
gone up, and costs have gone up. IT, railways, gas, electricity, you
name it, a vista of calamity and blown budgets for the taxpayer and
the ordinary consumer, whilst each and every year bosses walk away
with bigger pocketfuls of cash - and paying only pennies in tax to
boot. I think people are sick and tired of hearing about "public
sector inefficiency", whilst private sector fat cats tear our schools,
hospitals, and railways apart and charge us for the privilege.
> >Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
> >but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
> >is also the case across the developed world.
>
> your envy is rank foolishness...a 'rich' man can eat no more
> meals a day than a poor man....
abelard
Jun 7, 2013, 3:57:51 PM6/7/13
to
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:53:17 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
stop raving
>> >Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
>> >but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
>> >is also the case across the developed world.
>>
>> your envy is rank foolishness...a 'rich' man can eat no more
>> meals a day than a poor man....
>
>You tell that to people queueing at food banks.
why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
wrote:
>> >Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
>> >but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
>> >is also the case across the developed world.
>>
>> your envy is rank foolishness...a 'rich' man can eat no more
>> meals a day than a poor man....
>
>You tell that to people queueing at food banks.
Topaz
Jun 7, 2013, 10:08:19 PM6/7/13
to
The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.
The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://nationalvanguard.org/ http://heretical.com/
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Ste
Jun 8, 2013, 5:00:43 AM6/8/13
to
On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:53:17 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
Evidently you accept that some people are so poor that they must. In
my experience, the two biggest factors creating need for food banks,
are debt collectors who harass or threaten people into handing over
more money than they can afford (or who seize it directly from their
bank accounts), and benefit 'problems' (including sanctions, delays,
and other administrative interruptions to a claimant's normal income
of a pittance). That is the reality of food banks.
In maybe one in ten cases, there is something doubtful about the food
bank user's immediate need for food (which is the crisis that food
banks are supposed to alleviate), but what is never in question is
that the people who use food banks are extremely poor. Like the
'beggar on £50k' story the other day, some of the very poorest do not
remain impotent and passive in the receipt of charity, but actively
appropriate for themselves as much of the available charity as
possible. But, like the 'beggar on £50k', what nobody doubts is that
without charitable assistance, the underlying structure of our society
means that these people would be extremely poor indeed.
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:53:17 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Evidently you accept that some people are so poor that they must. In
my experience, the two biggest factors creating need for food banks,
are debt collectors who harass or threaten people into handing over
more money than they can afford (or who seize it directly from their
bank accounts), and benefit 'problems' (including sanctions, delays,
and other administrative interruptions to a claimant's normal income
of a pittance). That is the reality of food banks.
In maybe one in ten cases, there is something doubtful about the food
bank user's immediate need for food (which is the crisis that food
banks are supposed to alleviate), but what is never in question is
that the people who use food banks are extremely poor. Like the
'beggar on £50k' story the other day, some of the very poorest do not
remain impotent and passive in the receipt of charity, but actively
appropriate for themselves as much of the available charity as
possible. But, like the 'beggar on £50k', what nobody doubts is that
without charitable assistance, the underlying structure of our society
means that these people would be extremely poor indeed.
Ste
Jun 8, 2013, 5:20:49 AM6/8/13
to
On Jun 8, 3:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
> if the White man is more qualified.
And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
> if the White man is more qualified.
and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
> America is founded on the idea
> that the White man is to blame for everything bad.
Topaz
Jun 8, 2013, 5:59:14 AM6/8/13
to
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 02:20:49 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
>and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
>complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
>way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
The reason Blacks are poor is not because Whites oppress them, but
because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
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.
>America was founded on the idea that only the White man counted at all!
Not really but Whites are a wonderful race:
It's a Wonderful Race
by James Bronson
There once was a college freshman named George who thought he knew it
all. One night over dinner, George got into an argument with his
father. The argument began when the young student tried to explain to
his father that as White people, they should be held accountable for
all the evils that they had inflicted upon non-Whites throughout
history. George explained: "Because of European racism, we stole the
Indians' land, we held blacks in slavery, we persecuted the Jews, and
we plundered the environment. We've been oppressive racists for
thousands of years so it's only fair that we pay economic reparations
for all the harm we've done to the world. I'm pleased to see that we
are ending our political and economic domination of the oppressed
peoples."
George's dad was shocked to hear such talk. "Who put such commie-pinko
nonsense into your head, boy? Did one of your sandal-wearing hippie
college professors teach you that?" the father asked.
To which the son replied: "That's the truth dad. My anthropology
professor, Dr.Irving Silverstein, says so. He ought to know. Dr.
Silverstein is a well-respected Ph.D. People of your generation just
don't understand because you were raised in a White supremacist racist
society. That's why I've come to admire Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King as
the greatest man in American history. He stood up to the racists of
your generation. Because of him, my generation of White kids is
completely colorblind."
The father angrily replied: "That's bullshit! I've always been
fair-minded and tolerant of people from all backgrounds and races. I
haven't 'oppressed' anybody, and furthermore there's nothing wrong
with being proud of one's own people, including the European race of
people. Your race is in your blood. It's like an extension of your
biological family and you ought to be proud of your European heritage
and identity, just like every other racial group in America is proud
of its. Why is it OK for them to have a strong sense of racial
identity but it's evil for us Europeans to feel that way?"
The young "intellectual" laughed at his father. "Come on dad, that's
the kind of crap Hitler tried to peddle. Those racist attitudes were
discredited years ago. There's only one race and that's the human
race. Diversity is our greatest strength. Differences in so-called
"race" are as insignificant as differences in belly buttons. And
besides, UN statistics now show that low White birth rates, along with
the fact that we live in an multicultural
society, will mean that Europeans and their ethnocentrist and racist
culture will have died out by the end of the century," young George
said.
Turning red with anger, the father yelled: "You are a walking clich�
you know that boy? And you think it's a good thing that the European
peoples of the world will have faded out and ceased to exist?" Young
George replied; "I think it's great! It will mean the end of racism
and the end of hate. The oppressed peoples of the world would have
been better off if us racist Europeans had never existed to begin
with."
Suddenly there was a blast of cold wind, an explosion, and a huge
smoke cloud. When the smoke had settled, George found himself alone
and lost in a cold open field. An angel named Clarence then appeared
to him and said "Well George, you've got your wish."
George asked: "Where am I? What's going on here? And who are you?"
The angel answered, "George, I'm Clarence the Angel. I was sent here
to show you what the world would have been like if Europeans, or
Whites, had never existed. You now live in a world where Europeans
never existed."
"Oh. That's cool. I'll have no problem adapting because there's not a
racist bone in my body. And when I get back to my world, I'll be able
to tell my professor and my friends how great this non-racist world
was. Say, I'm freezing my ass off out here. Where's the nearest
motel?"
"Motel?" replied the angel. "There are no motels here in what was once
called North America. But there are some caves up in those mountains
where you can find shelter."
"Caves? No way man. I want a nice warm bed to sleep in."
"I don't think you understand George. There are no buildings here in
non-white America because the evil Europeans never came here to build
them. Whites never existed, remember? The natives live in tents. Would
you like to go meet some local Indians? Perhaps they'll let you stay
in a tent."
"A tent? But it's 10 degrees outside?...Oh well. It's better than a
cave I suppose. Let's go talk to these Indians...... Wait a second,
are these Indians friendly or hostile?"
"Why, George, that's a racist question to ask. Just because some
Indians were brutal savages who scalped their victims alive, it
doesn't mean they all were" said the angel sarcastically.
"I know that Clarence. And I'm not a racist. I hate racism.
Nonetheless, I'd feel safer if I could have a gun to defend myself if
they turn out to be violent."
"Gun?" replied the angel. "There are no guns for you to defend
yourself with. Firearms were invented by evil Europeans. Though we
could make a spear with those twigs over there."
"That's too much work. Give me a telephone then. I'll call the Indians
to ask if it's OK."
"Telephone"? replied the angel. There are no telephones here.
Alexander Graham Bell was another evil white man, so he never existed.
No Europeans remember?" "Forget it then" replied George. "I'll sleep
in the damn cave."
Upon arriving at the cave, a shivering George asked the angel for a
lighter so that he could light a fire. "A lighter?" replied Clarence.
"There are no lighters here, and no matches. Those are European
gadgets and evil Europeans never existed remember? If you want to get
warm, you need to do like the locals do and start rubbing twigs
together."
"Oh come on man! You mean to tell me these people still rub sticks
together for fire?"
"That's right George. The Indians live exactly as they did before the
evil pilgrims arrived from Europe just a few centuries ago." said the
angel sarcastically.
"I refuse to stay in this cold cave and I damn sure ain't gonna light
a fire with twigs, and I refuse to sleep in a teepee. I'll go to South
America. I can make it in a warmer climate and I'll adapt quickly to
the great Incan civilization I learned about at college. Since
European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed, the
Incans will still be there.
... I need a car"
"Car?" replied the angel. "There are no cars here. Daimler and Benz,
the evil German inventors of the internal combustion engine, were
never born..nor was Henry Ford. There are no paved roads either. This
is a world without evil Europeans remember?"
"No cars! Oh. I'll just have to take a train."
"There are no trains in this world either George. Evil Europeans
weren't here to build locomotive engines or to discover the many uses
of coal, oil and gas, or to build trains or lay tracks. But I'll allow
you to cheat just a bit. Grab hold of my magic robe and we'll fly
south."
George touched the angel's robe and they flew south until they arrived
in an abandoned mud hut in the midst of Incan territory. George was
grateful for the warm weather but it wasn't long until he began to
complain about the heat and humidity.
"Clarence, this hut is a little shithole and I'm sweating up a storm
here. Get me an air-conditioner please."
"Air-conditioner?" replied the angel. "There are no air-conditioners
here. Air conditioning and refrigeration were inventions created by
evil White men." "What?!! You mean to tell me that in the year 2002
these people still haven't figured out a way to keep themselves or
their food cool? a frustrated George asked.
"No George, they haven't. And they never will."
"This is ridiculous. Let's go to the main city to see the Emperor. I
can't live like this. Where's a car...oh I forget...no cars! Dammit
I'll walk. let's go."
After walking through the jungle for about an hour or so, it began to
get dark. George then asked Clarence to give him a flashlight so that
he could see. "Flashlight? Sorry George, but Thomas Edison was an evil
White man too...and he was never born. There are some branches over
there if you want to make a torch."
"Never mind that!" George shouted back.
By morning time, Clarence and George had arrived at the temple of the
Incans. A bloody human sacrifice was in progress. George turned to
Clarence and cried, "They're going to butcher that poor soul! Somebody
has got to stop this. What horrible murdering beasts! Can't anyone
stop them?"
The angel replied "I'm afraid not. Ritual killings are common place
here."Those evil European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro
never existed so the Incans just continued their brutal ways. In fact,
it was the oppressed peoples themselves who made up the bulk of the
Spanish armed forces. The people saw the Spaniards as liberators who
would rid them of the oppressive Incan and Mayan rulers and give them
a better life."
"I can't blame them for helping the Spaniards then. This is a horrible
place. Get me out of this shithole now!" said George.
'Where would you like to go?" Clarence replied.
George said: "Take me to Africa, maybe there's a more advanced and
humane civilization there that I can fit into. Where the nearest
airport?"
"Oh, I forgot...no Wright Brothers." George said. "How about a boat?"
"Boats?" replied the angel. "I'm afraid the most seaworthy rafts
available to you won't be of much help in crossing the vast Atlantic
Ocean. The great Viking sailors and European navigators never existed.
No Phoenicians, no Leif Erickson, no Henry the Navigator, no Columbus,
no Magellan, no Hudson and no Robert Fulton. Even if you could build
your own ship, there would be no compass for you to navigate with and
no sextant either. I'm afraid you're stuck here George."
"Can I touch your robe and fly to Africa then" asked George.
"You're cheating again George, but all right. Touch my robe and we'll
fly to Africa."
When they arrived in Africa, George saw thousands of half-naked
African tribesmen being herded along a dirt path. They were guarded by
other Africans with spears. "What are they doing to those poor men?"
George asked Clarence.
"They are being enslaved by another tribe. Slavery was common in
Africa long before the whites arrived." Clarence said. "In fact, most
of the slaves who were shipped to the Americas were sold to the slave
traders by African tribal leaders."
"That's so sad.' George said. "I want to meet Martin Luther King.
Since his White assassin never existed, this great man should still be
alive. He's probably a great tribal chief somewhere and leader of an
advanced civilization. He will free these slaves from their African
masters. Take me to him Clarence."
Clarence led George to a little hut deep in the heart of Africa. The
naked women and children looked at George in wonder. The young men
were out on a hunt but the older men stayed behind. George was led to
the dingy little hut of the tribal witchdoctor and spiritual leader.
There he saw a wild-looking man with a necklace of teeth around his
neck and a huge ring pierced through his nose. "What the hell is that?
George asked.
"Meet Witch-doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga" Clarence said. He never
became Reverend Martin Luther King because there were no universities
or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create
such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He
specializes in casting evil spells. Perhaps he can help you?"
The witch doctor gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his
henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed hold of George
and tied him to a nearby tree.
"Stop it! Let me go. What are they going to do to me?" cried George
hysterically.
"They're going to perform a ritual killing on you George. The good
doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by cutting your heart out
while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to
his tribe," laughed Clarence.
"Clarence! Clarence! Help me Clarence! Help me!
"But George, you told me that you wanted to go to Africa and to meet
your hero Reverend King."
George said: "This part of Africa has not developed yet. I can see
that now. Take me to North Africa where Egypt and Carthage established
great civilizations. Just get me out of here, please."
Just as the witch doctor's spear was about to carve out George's
heart, George vanished into thin air. He then found himself on the
banks of the river Nile in Egypt.
"Thank you Clarence. Thank you," George said. "I don't understand it
Clarence. Why does so much of the world remain so brutal and
primitive? I learned during Black History Month about many talented
black inventors and scientists. Garrett Morgan, George Washington
Carver, Benjamin Banneker, Granville Woods. Then there's Dr. Carson,
the preeminent brain surgeon in all of America. Where are these men?"
Clarence replied: "Don't you understand yet? America, and Africa,
exist exactly as they did before the Europeans discovered them.
Civilization as you had known it had only been introduced to these
people just a few centuries ago by the Europeans. There are no
universities, no hospitals, no means of transportation other than
animals, no science, no medicine, no machines. In fact, the wheel
hasn't even been discovered in Sub-Saharan
Africa! Those black scientists, inventors, doctors, athletes, and
entertainers you speak of were never given the opportunity to realize
their full human potential because Europeans weren't around to
introduce higher civilization and learning to them. There are no
George Washington Carvers in this non-European world, no Dr. Carsons,
no Booker T. Washingtons, no Benjamin Bannekers, no Michael Jordans,
no Oprah Winfreys, no Bill Cosbys, no..."
"Stop it! That can't be!" cried George. "Let's walk over to the great
pyramids of Egypt right now and I'll show you one of the great wonders
of the world .....built by non-Whites"
They walked a few miles before George stopped and asked where the
nearest toilet was. "Toilets?" replied the angel. There are no toilets
or urinals in this world. Plumbing was developed by evil Europeans.
The people in this non-White world still relieve themselves in open
fields."
Clarence turned around so George could do his business. "I need some
toilet paper." George said.
"Toilet paper?" replied the angel. "There..."
"I know. I know. Toilet paper hasn't been invented yet. Just hand me a
rag then".
Clarence obliged and the two of them went on their way.
"I don't understand. According to my recollections from Geography
class, the great pyramids should be near this very spot. We ought to
be able to see them from miles away," said George.
"Well, George, I'm sure your professors at the college never told you
this, but the ancient Egyptians were not black or brown. They were
Caucasians. The anthropologists who examined the Egyptian mummies
confirmed this fact. There are no pyramids and no Sphinx either. And
the Carthaginians were White too."
George became depressed, but he was determined to prove his beliefs.
"What's in Europe?" he asked.
"Europe became populated by Huns and other Asiatic tribes. They've
settled down a bit but life is much the same as it is in North
America. A nomadic existence based on hunting and food gathering. No
great cities, no science, no buildings, no culture, no fine art - just
a hard daily struggle against life and the elements of nature. In a
Europe without evil Whites, the Roman Empire never existed nor did the
Greeks. There was no Renaissance either."
"Take me to Asia then. Surely the great civilizations of Persia,
India, China, and Japan will suit me" George said. "Clarence, to the
Taj Mahal please." "The Taj Mahal?" replied the angel. "Don't you know
that the ancient Persian and Indian civilizations were established by
ancient Indo-European tribes who crossed the Himalayas? They are the
ones who civilized India and built the Taj Mahal. Those are the great
civilizations
that Marco Polo, Columbus, and others were searching for.Did you know
that Iran is Persian for "land of the Aryan?"
George said: "Don't tell me that the Indians were White men! That
can't be. In the world I came from, I knew many Indians and they were
not White!"
Clarence explained: "As the centuries passed, the Indo-Europeans who
created Indian civilization intermarried with the native majorities
who populated the Indian subcontinent. Gradually there were less and
less evil White people until they faded out completely, along with the
advanced civilization they had built. You will notice that there are
still a few white-skinned and fair-haired Indians and Pakistanis
around today -- in the world you came from that is.
George became worried. He knew he could never fit into the harsh
primitive world he had been thrust into. Suddenly he thought of Japan.
"Japan! I'll show you now Clarence. Take me to Japan. If the Japanese
can make TVs and cameras then I'm sure I'll find a decent civilization
that I can live in."
Clarence transported George to Japan. George observed that Japanese
society was the most orderly, advanced and civil that he had seen, but
it seemed as if almost everyone was either a rice farmer, a fisherman,
or a soldier. There were no cars, no skyscrapers, no lights, no
stereos, no sciences, no technologies, no universities. It was a
stagnant agricultural society that seemed to have reached its high
water mark and was incapable of moving forward. George knew he could
not live here either.
Clarence explained to George: "Even the industrious Japanese and
Chinese peoples had to rely on the evil Europeans to build the modern
Asia that you had in mind. In this world, Japan exists exactly as it
did before Commodore Perry's American naval ships arrived in Japan in
the 1850s. There's no industry, no technology, no Fuji film, no Sony,
no Hitachi, no Panasonic, no Toyota, no Sushi bars, no baseball...none
of the trappings or comforts of modern life. These things don't exist
in Japan or anywhere else because
Europeans weren't there to create them and share them with the rest of
the world. Would you care for a bowl of rice George?"
George began to feel sick in both his body and his mind. Not only was
he depressed, but exposure to the harsh elements of nature had left
him physically ill. "Clarence, I seem to have contracted some type of
sickness. I must have some anti-biotics."
"Anti-biotics? There's no...
"Oh Shut up already! Then just take me back to the world as it was!"
"Sorry George. I'm not authorized to do that. Only my boss can make
that call." Clarence said to him: "You see George. Your father was
right. You really had a wonderful race. Don't you see what a foolish
mistake it is to be ashamed and guilty about your own people, and to
let them die out? This is what the world would be like without the
creative spark of Edison and Ford and Pasteur and Marconi. No great
scientists, or mathematicians, or inventors or fine artists. No
Archimedes, no Aristotle, no Socrates, no
Alexander, no Renaissance, no Newton, no Kepler, no Goddard, no
Mendel, no Tesla, no Faraday, no Guttenberg, no Shakespeare, no
Dickens, no Twain, no Mozart, no Beethoven, no Da Vinci, no
Michelangelo, no Galileo, no Copernicus. No Venice, no Paris, no
Lisbon, no Madrid, no Zurich, no Berlin, no St. Petersburg, no
Budapest, no Rome, no Milan, no Vienna, no London, no New York, no
Rio, no Sydney. No orchestras, no museums, no universities, no
hospitals, no libraries, no theaters, no radio, no books, no
television, no electricity, no refrigeration, no heating, no plumbing,
no houses, no steel, no stadiums, no vaccines, no cars, no planes, no
trains, no ships, no
dentists, no surgeons, no computers, no telephones, and most important
- there's no creative genius to be found that could create and sustain
such a high level of civilization. There's nothing for the people of
this world to build upon. It's just a daily struggle for subsistence.
A brutal planet where the few people who aren't mired in eternal
ignorance and darkness have reached their peak of civilization and are
advancing no further."
Clarence went on to lecture the broken and depressed young man for
seven days straight. He covered everything. History, science,
economics, philosophy, art, literature, fine music, architecture,
medicine, politics, agriculture, religion, and all the creations and
contributions that the European peoples had made in every conceivable
field of human endeavor. George listened closely to every word. He
felt like a man who had been
reborn.
After his lecture, Clarence the Angel floated away towards heaven. "I
hope you have found all this to be educational, and I hope you have
learned an important lesson. Enjoy your world George!" mocked the
departing angel.
George began to sob like a baby. It was the year 2002 and he was alone
and hungry in a backwards world where Europeans had never existed. He
cried out to the stars: "Please God. I see what a fool I've been. I
understand now what my father was trying to tell me. I want to go back
to the world that I came from. A world where Europeans not only
existed, but blessed the rest of humanity world with their unique
creative ability. I want to live in a civilized world. Please
God!...take me back!...take me back!...Oh God....please."
Suddenly George was transported back to his college dormitory. Drunk
with joy, George jumped into the showers before he could even take his
clothes off!.
"Warm water! and soap! Life is beautiful!" he screamed.
George's floor mates looked at him as if he was crazy. "George! Have
you gone crazy?" asked a bewildered schoolmate.
"No my friend. I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them!"
George replied. George then began to sing classic European folk songs
in the shower. Miraculously, he was able to sing in many different
languages. He sang O Sole Mio in Italian, Amazing Grace in English,
Gloire Immortelle in French, Das Ist Der Tag in German, and also
Belgian, Spanish and French ballads and waltzes. Tears of sheer joy
began to stream down his cheeks. The degenerate music of Hip-Hop and
Rap lost all of its appeal to young George.
After his shower, George drove to a nearby restaurant and ordered two
whole entrees. One was Lasagna and the other was a delicious Veal
Marsala. With his Italian food he had a Greek salad with Spanish
olives and Russian dressing, drank a whole bottle of French wine,
followed by a German pastry for dessert. He finished his meal off with
a hot cup of English tea and a Cuban cigar.
George said out loud: "Oh those European peoples and their delicious
cuisine. Clarence was right after all. What a wonderful race!"
George was happy, but at the same time he realized there was much work
to be done. He thought of all those poor whites in Rhodesia and South
Africa who were being murdered and raped ever since they gave up
control of those once-European nations. He thought of the many
thousands of qualified Whites who were passed up for good jobs and
college entrance because of racial quotas that discriminate against
Europeans. He thought about the declining birthrates among all the
European nations of the world. He remembered that
Europeans everywhere were dwindling in numbers every year even as
their own nations were being flooded with third world immigration. He
recalled the O.J. Simpson verdict and how millions of blacks in
America cheered when that brutal double murderer was set free by a
black jury after he stabbed two Whites to death. He remembered the Los
Angeles riots of 1992, where dozens of Whites were dragged out of
their vehicles and killed like dogs in the streets by packs of
White-hating monsters who were never even punished! He remembered the
time when Jesse Jackson led a cheer at Stanford University: "Hey Hey
Ho Ho, Western Civ. has got to go!" His European blood began to
boil in righteous indignation when he recalled how Jesse Jackson once
said he had spit in White people's food when he was a young restaurant
worker. George now understood that that his people were on a collision
course with worldwide disaster and genocide. George realized that this
great people must not perish from the face of the earth.
George could not wait to see his father. He longed to embrace him and
apologize for all of the foolish and disrespectful things he had said
to him. But first, George had a score to settle with a certain college
professor. He walked into Dr. Silverstein's auditorium and quietly
took a seat in the back row. The nasal voiced Silverstein was
lecturing on and on
about racial and gender inequalities in European-centered
civilizations. It was vintage Silverstein. George's impressionable
White schoolmates, with their baggy pants, hip-hop clothes and
backwards baseball caps, were swallowing Silverstein's poison pills
hook, line and sinker. After letting Silverstein spew his cultural
poison for about 15 minutes or so, George raised his hand so that he
could give the professor a piece of his newly educated mind.
"George? Is that you? I remember you from last semester. I wasn't
aware that you were here today. I failed to recognize you in that
shirt and tie, and without your earrings. You must have enjoyed my
course so much that you signed up again eh? Class, I'd like for you to
meet George. He was one of my brightest students last semester. He
truly has a thorough grasp of the ideas presented in this course.
George, would you be so kind as to tell my class about that brilliant
term paper you wrote about European racism,
imperialism, and the need for monetary reparations?"
That's when young George let loose on the unsuspecting Professor.
"ENOUGH! You scheming devil! You mendacious fabricator of falsehoods!
You pusillanimous purveyor of pinko propaganda! How dare you try to
corrupt and manipulate our young minds when your filthy lies. We
Europeans have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for, and
everything to be proud of. And most of all, we don't owe anybody
jack-shit - not one thin dime! To the contrary, it is the rest of
humanity that owes us a debt which can never be repaid! We are the
rightful heirs and protectors of a rich cultural heritage. You vile
manipulator! We are the sons of the Romans, the sons of
the Greeks, the Celtics, the Vikings, the Normans, the Saxons. Why do
you inflict shame and guilt upon us? We Europeans didn't just
contribute to civilization...WE ARE CIVILIZATION! And I declare that I
will no longer tolerate you shithead "intellectuals" trying to tear
our people down. Never again will we walk on eggshells when we speak,
always fearing that we might be called "racist." I no longer care what
people think. All that matters is the truth which you have sought to
pervert!"
"What are you up to anyway? Why do you to corrupt my young peers by
shoving false heroes down their throats. Enough of your Marxist games
of divide and conquer, you commie pinko subversive! I don't want to
learn anymore about Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or
Black History Month. They would not have amounted to anything without
the institutions of high civilization created by the European peoples.
I'm going to set this class straight about who the truly great men of
history are - the European
statesmen, scientists, explorers, monarchs, navigators, conquerors,
inventors, artists, writers, philosophers - the innovative giants of
history that you and your ilk have erased from our collective
memories. You speak of a world liberated from European influence?
Permit me tell your students about such a world, Silverstein, because
I can speak from personal experience, you wretched little conspiring
monster!"
Silverstein turned white as a ghost. He was shell-shocked and rendered
speechless for the first time in his career! Never in all of his years
at the University had a student dared to so boldly challenge his
falsehoods. Speaking from the heart as well as the mind, and with an
eloquence he never thought he could muster, George broke out into a
60-minute monologue on history, science, philosophy, culture, and all
the other attributes that
constitute high civilization. The young students were captivated by
George's brilliant oratory. Many were moved to tears. By the end of
his tirade, George's reawakened classmates were thundering their
approval of his speech. The class gave George a standing ovation and
they thanked him for helping them rediscover and reclaim their own
sense of pride and lost identity. The unstoppable power of truth had
melted away years of Marxist guilt tripping, self hate, wimpishness
and cultural brainwashing in just one unforgettable hour. The inspired
students proceeded to storm out of Silverstein's class,
throwing their hip-hop baseball caps and nose earrings at him as they
stampeded out and vowed never to return. They lifted George up upon
their shoulders and carried him out of the auditorium like a
conquering hero. With a glint in his eye, George glanced up towards
the sky, winked and said "Thank you, Clarence."
Dr. Silverstein was left humiliated and visibly shaken. He knew that
these reawakened European kids could never again be brainwashed with
"political correctness" and White guilt. Silverstein's greatest fear
was that more of these proud European youths would one day reawaken
and take their country and civilization back from the Silversteins of
the world.
Silverstein was worried, but he remained confident that most young men
and women would never learn the truth about their glorious past and
unique creative abilities. After all, the mass media, Hollywood, the
music industry, the colleges, and the public schools are all
controlled by "liberals" like Dr. Silverstein. With the power of
political correctness in their hands, they can continue to tear down
our European ancestors, destroy our
institutions and traditions, instigate blacks and other races against
the whites, flood America with third-world immigration, and push
"hip-hop" music, homosexuality, and other garbage onto a weak,
confused and morally degenerate youth. After reflecting upon these
facts, Silverstein smiled a devilish grin and muttered to himself: "A
few of these European sheep may wake up to what's being done to them,
but the majority of these idiots never will." And he smiled
again....and laughed with diabolical Marxist glee. Then
he repeated to himself "No...they will never figure it all out until
it's too late."
Or will they?
wrote:
>And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
>and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
>complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
>way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
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.
>America was founded on the idea that only the White man counted at all!
It's a Wonderful Race
by James Bronson
There once was a college freshman named George who thought he knew it
all. One night over dinner, George got into an argument with his
father. The argument began when the young student tried to explain to
his father that as White people, they should be held accountable for
all the evils that they had inflicted upon non-Whites throughout
history. George explained: "Because of European racism, we stole the
Indians' land, we held blacks in slavery, we persecuted the Jews, and
we plundered the environment. We've been oppressive racists for
thousands of years so it's only fair that we pay economic reparations
for all the harm we've done to the world. I'm pleased to see that we
are ending our political and economic domination of the oppressed
peoples."
George's dad was shocked to hear such talk. "Who put such commie-pinko
nonsense into your head, boy? Did one of your sandal-wearing hippie
college professors teach you that?" the father asked.
To which the son replied: "That's the truth dad. My anthropology
professor, Dr.Irving Silverstein, says so. He ought to know. Dr.
Silverstein is a well-respected Ph.D. People of your generation just
don't understand because you were raised in a White supremacist racist
society. That's why I've come to admire Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King as
the greatest man in American history. He stood up to the racists of
your generation. Because of him, my generation of White kids is
completely colorblind."
The father angrily replied: "That's bullshit! I've always been
fair-minded and tolerant of people from all backgrounds and races. I
haven't 'oppressed' anybody, and furthermore there's nothing wrong
with being proud of one's own people, including the European race of
people. Your race is in your blood. It's like an extension of your
biological family and you ought to be proud of your European heritage
and identity, just like every other racial group in America is proud
of its. Why is it OK for them to have a strong sense of racial
identity but it's evil for us Europeans to feel that way?"
The young "intellectual" laughed at his father. "Come on dad, that's
the kind of crap Hitler tried to peddle. Those racist attitudes were
discredited years ago. There's only one race and that's the human
race. Diversity is our greatest strength. Differences in so-called
"race" are as insignificant as differences in belly buttons. And
besides, UN statistics now show that low White birth rates, along with
the fact that we live in an multicultural
society, will mean that Europeans and their ethnocentrist and racist
culture will have died out by the end of the century," young George
said.
Turning red with anger, the father yelled: "You are a walking clich�
you know that boy? And you think it's a good thing that the European
peoples of the world will have faded out and ceased to exist?" Young
George replied; "I think it's great! It will mean the end of racism
and the end of hate. The oppressed peoples of the world would have
been better off if us racist Europeans had never existed to begin
with."
Suddenly there was a blast of cold wind, an explosion, and a huge
smoke cloud. When the smoke had settled, George found himself alone
and lost in a cold open field. An angel named Clarence then appeared
to him and said "Well George, you've got your wish."
George asked: "Where am I? What's going on here? And who are you?"
The angel answered, "George, I'm Clarence the Angel. I was sent here
to show you what the world would have been like if Europeans, or
Whites, had never existed. You now live in a world where Europeans
never existed."
"Oh. That's cool. I'll have no problem adapting because there's not a
racist bone in my body. And when I get back to my world, I'll be able
to tell my professor and my friends how great this non-racist world
was. Say, I'm freezing my ass off out here. Where's the nearest
motel?"
"Motel?" replied the angel. "There are no motels here in what was once
called North America. But there are some caves up in those mountains
where you can find shelter."
"Caves? No way man. I want a nice warm bed to sleep in."
"I don't think you understand George. There are no buildings here in
non-white America because the evil Europeans never came here to build
them. Whites never existed, remember? The natives live in tents. Would
you like to go meet some local Indians? Perhaps they'll let you stay
in a tent."
"A tent? But it's 10 degrees outside?...Oh well. It's better than a
cave I suppose. Let's go talk to these Indians...... Wait a second,
are these Indians friendly or hostile?"
"Why, George, that's a racist question to ask. Just because some
Indians were brutal savages who scalped their victims alive, it
doesn't mean they all were" said the angel sarcastically.
"I know that Clarence. And I'm not a racist. I hate racism.
Nonetheless, I'd feel safer if I could have a gun to defend myself if
they turn out to be violent."
"Gun?" replied the angel. "There are no guns for you to defend
yourself with. Firearms were invented by evil Europeans. Though we
could make a spear with those twigs over there."
"That's too much work. Give me a telephone then. I'll call the Indians
to ask if it's OK."
"Telephone"? replied the angel. There are no telephones here.
Alexander Graham Bell was another evil white man, so he never existed.
No Europeans remember?" "Forget it then" replied George. "I'll sleep
in the damn cave."
Upon arriving at the cave, a shivering George asked the angel for a
lighter so that he could light a fire. "A lighter?" replied Clarence.
"There are no lighters here, and no matches. Those are European
gadgets and evil Europeans never existed remember? If you want to get
warm, you need to do like the locals do and start rubbing twigs
together."
"Oh come on man! You mean to tell me these people still rub sticks
together for fire?"
"That's right George. The Indians live exactly as they did before the
evil pilgrims arrived from Europe just a few centuries ago." said the
angel sarcastically.
"I refuse to stay in this cold cave and I damn sure ain't gonna light
a fire with twigs, and I refuse to sleep in a teepee. I'll go to South
America. I can make it in a warmer climate and I'll adapt quickly to
the great Incan civilization I learned about at college. Since
European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed, the
Incans will still be there.
... I need a car"
"Car?" replied the angel. "There are no cars here. Daimler and Benz,
the evil German inventors of the internal combustion engine, were
never born..nor was Henry Ford. There are no paved roads either. This
is a world without evil Europeans remember?"
"No cars! Oh. I'll just have to take a train."
"There are no trains in this world either George. Evil Europeans
weren't here to build locomotive engines or to discover the many uses
of coal, oil and gas, or to build trains or lay tracks. But I'll allow
you to cheat just a bit. Grab hold of my magic robe and we'll fly
south."
George touched the angel's robe and they flew south until they arrived
in an abandoned mud hut in the midst of Incan territory. George was
grateful for the warm weather but it wasn't long until he began to
complain about the heat and humidity.
"Clarence, this hut is a little shithole and I'm sweating up a storm
here. Get me an air-conditioner please."
"Air-conditioner?" replied the angel. "There are no air-conditioners
here. Air conditioning and refrigeration were inventions created by
evil White men." "What?!! You mean to tell me that in the year 2002
these people still haven't figured out a way to keep themselves or
their food cool? a frustrated George asked.
"No George, they haven't. And they never will."
"This is ridiculous. Let's go to the main city to see the Emperor. I
can't live like this. Where's a car...oh I forget...no cars! Dammit
I'll walk. let's go."
After walking through the jungle for about an hour or so, it began to
get dark. George then asked Clarence to give him a flashlight so that
he could see. "Flashlight? Sorry George, but Thomas Edison was an evil
White man too...and he was never born. There are some branches over
there if you want to make a torch."
"Never mind that!" George shouted back.
By morning time, Clarence and George had arrived at the temple of the
Incans. A bloody human sacrifice was in progress. George turned to
Clarence and cried, "They're going to butcher that poor soul! Somebody
has got to stop this. What horrible murdering beasts! Can't anyone
stop them?"
The angel replied "I'm afraid not. Ritual killings are common place
here."Those evil European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro
never existed so the Incans just continued their brutal ways. In fact,
it was the oppressed peoples themselves who made up the bulk of the
Spanish armed forces. The people saw the Spaniards as liberators who
would rid them of the oppressive Incan and Mayan rulers and give them
a better life."
"I can't blame them for helping the Spaniards then. This is a horrible
place. Get me out of this shithole now!" said George.
'Where would you like to go?" Clarence replied.
George said: "Take me to Africa, maybe there's a more advanced and
humane civilization there that I can fit into. Where the nearest
airport?"
"Oh, I forgot...no Wright Brothers." George said. "How about a boat?"
"Boats?" replied the angel. "I'm afraid the most seaworthy rafts
available to you won't be of much help in crossing the vast Atlantic
Ocean. The great Viking sailors and European navigators never existed.
No Phoenicians, no Leif Erickson, no Henry the Navigator, no Columbus,
no Magellan, no Hudson and no Robert Fulton. Even if you could build
your own ship, there would be no compass for you to navigate with and
no sextant either. I'm afraid you're stuck here George."
"Can I touch your robe and fly to Africa then" asked George.
"You're cheating again George, but all right. Touch my robe and we'll
fly to Africa."
When they arrived in Africa, George saw thousands of half-naked
African tribesmen being herded along a dirt path. They were guarded by
other Africans with spears. "What are they doing to those poor men?"
George asked Clarence.
"They are being enslaved by another tribe. Slavery was common in
Africa long before the whites arrived." Clarence said. "In fact, most
of the slaves who were shipped to the Americas were sold to the slave
traders by African tribal leaders."
"That's so sad.' George said. "I want to meet Martin Luther King.
Since his White assassin never existed, this great man should still be
alive. He's probably a great tribal chief somewhere and leader of an
advanced civilization. He will free these slaves from their African
masters. Take me to him Clarence."
Clarence led George to a little hut deep in the heart of Africa. The
naked women and children looked at George in wonder. The young men
were out on a hunt but the older men stayed behind. George was led to
the dingy little hut of the tribal witchdoctor and spiritual leader.
There he saw a wild-looking man with a necklace of teeth around his
neck and a huge ring pierced through his nose. "What the hell is that?
George asked.
"Meet Witch-doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga" Clarence said. He never
became Reverend Martin Luther King because there were no universities
or seminaries built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create
such opportunities. But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He
specializes in casting evil spells. Perhaps he can help you?"
The witch doctor gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his
henchmen to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed hold of George
and tied him to a nearby tree.
"Stop it! Let me go. What are they going to do to me?" cried George
hysterically.
"They're going to perform a ritual killing on you George. The good
doctor King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by cutting your heart out
while you are still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to
his tribe," laughed Clarence.
"Clarence! Clarence! Help me Clarence! Help me!
"But George, you told me that you wanted to go to Africa and to meet
your hero Reverend King."
George said: "This part of Africa has not developed yet. I can see
that now. Take me to North Africa where Egypt and Carthage established
great civilizations. Just get me out of here, please."
Just as the witch doctor's spear was about to carve out George's
heart, George vanished into thin air. He then found himself on the
banks of the river Nile in Egypt.
"Thank you Clarence. Thank you," George said. "I don't understand it
Clarence. Why does so much of the world remain so brutal and
primitive? I learned during Black History Month about many talented
black inventors and scientists. Garrett Morgan, George Washington
Carver, Benjamin Banneker, Granville Woods. Then there's Dr. Carson,
the preeminent brain surgeon in all of America. Where are these men?"
Clarence replied: "Don't you understand yet? America, and Africa,
exist exactly as they did before the Europeans discovered them.
Civilization as you had known it had only been introduced to these
people just a few centuries ago by the Europeans. There are no
universities, no hospitals, no means of transportation other than
animals, no science, no medicine, no machines. In fact, the wheel
hasn't even been discovered in Sub-Saharan
Africa! Those black scientists, inventors, doctors, athletes, and
entertainers you speak of were never given the opportunity to realize
their full human potential because Europeans weren't around to
introduce higher civilization and learning to them. There are no
George Washington Carvers in this non-European world, no Dr. Carsons,
no Booker T. Washingtons, no Benjamin Bannekers, no Michael Jordans,
no Oprah Winfreys, no Bill Cosbys, no..."
"Stop it! That can't be!" cried George. "Let's walk over to the great
pyramids of Egypt right now and I'll show you one of the great wonders
of the world .....built by non-Whites"
They walked a few miles before George stopped and asked where the
nearest toilet was. "Toilets?" replied the angel. There are no toilets
or urinals in this world. Plumbing was developed by evil Europeans.
The people in this non-White world still relieve themselves in open
fields."
Clarence turned around so George could do his business. "I need some
toilet paper." George said.
"Toilet paper?" replied the angel. "There..."
"I know. I know. Toilet paper hasn't been invented yet. Just hand me a
rag then".
Clarence obliged and the two of them went on their way.
"I don't understand. According to my recollections from Geography
class, the great pyramids should be near this very spot. We ought to
be able to see them from miles away," said George.
"Well, George, I'm sure your professors at the college never told you
this, but the ancient Egyptians were not black or brown. They were
Caucasians. The anthropologists who examined the Egyptian mummies
confirmed this fact. There are no pyramids and no Sphinx either. And
the Carthaginians were White too."
George became depressed, but he was determined to prove his beliefs.
"What's in Europe?" he asked.
"Europe became populated by Huns and other Asiatic tribes. They've
settled down a bit but life is much the same as it is in North
America. A nomadic existence based on hunting and food gathering. No
great cities, no science, no buildings, no culture, no fine art - just
a hard daily struggle against life and the elements of nature. In a
Europe without evil Whites, the Roman Empire never existed nor did the
Greeks. There was no Renaissance either."
"Take me to Asia then. Surely the great civilizations of Persia,
India, China, and Japan will suit me" George said. "Clarence, to the
Taj Mahal please." "The Taj Mahal?" replied the angel. "Don't you know
that the ancient Persian and Indian civilizations were established by
ancient Indo-European tribes who crossed the Himalayas? They are the
ones who civilized India and built the Taj Mahal. Those are the great
civilizations
that Marco Polo, Columbus, and others were searching for.Did you know
that Iran is Persian for "land of the Aryan?"
George said: "Don't tell me that the Indians were White men! That
can't be. In the world I came from, I knew many Indians and they were
not White!"
Clarence explained: "As the centuries passed, the Indo-Europeans who
created Indian civilization intermarried with the native majorities
who populated the Indian subcontinent. Gradually there were less and
less evil White people until they faded out completely, along with the
advanced civilization they had built. You will notice that there are
still a few white-skinned and fair-haired Indians and Pakistanis
around today -- in the world you came from that is.
George became worried. He knew he could never fit into the harsh
primitive world he had been thrust into. Suddenly he thought of Japan.
"Japan! I'll show you now Clarence. Take me to Japan. If the Japanese
can make TVs and cameras then I'm sure I'll find a decent civilization
that I can live in."
Clarence transported George to Japan. George observed that Japanese
society was the most orderly, advanced and civil that he had seen, but
it seemed as if almost everyone was either a rice farmer, a fisherman,
or a soldier. There were no cars, no skyscrapers, no lights, no
stereos, no sciences, no technologies, no universities. It was a
stagnant agricultural society that seemed to have reached its high
water mark and was incapable of moving forward. George knew he could
not live here either.
Clarence explained to George: "Even the industrious Japanese and
Chinese peoples had to rely on the evil Europeans to build the modern
Asia that you had in mind. In this world, Japan exists exactly as it
did before Commodore Perry's American naval ships arrived in Japan in
the 1850s. There's no industry, no technology, no Fuji film, no Sony,
no Hitachi, no Panasonic, no Toyota, no Sushi bars, no baseball...none
of the trappings or comforts of modern life. These things don't exist
in Japan or anywhere else because
Europeans weren't there to create them and share them with the rest of
the world. Would you care for a bowl of rice George?"
George began to feel sick in both his body and his mind. Not only was
he depressed, but exposure to the harsh elements of nature had left
him physically ill. "Clarence, I seem to have contracted some type of
sickness. I must have some anti-biotics."
"Anti-biotics? There's no...
"Oh Shut up already! Then just take me back to the world as it was!"
"Sorry George. I'm not authorized to do that. Only my boss can make
that call." Clarence said to him: "You see George. Your father was
right. You really had a wonderful race. Don't you see what a foolish
mistake it is to be ashamed and guilty about your own people, and to
let them die out? This is what the world would be like without the
creative spark of Edison and Ford and Pasteur and Marconi. No great
scientists, or mathematicians, or inventors or fine artists. No
Archimedes, no Aristotle, no Socrates, no
Alexander, no Renaissance, no Newton, no Kepler, no Goddard, no
Mendel, no Tesla, no Faraday, no Guttenberg, no Shakespeare, no
Dickens, no Twain, no Mozart, no Beethoven, no Da Vinci, no
Michelangelo, no Galileo, no Copernicus. No Venice, no Paris, no
Lisbon, no Madrid, no Zurich, no Berlin, no St. Petersburg, no
Budapest, no Rome, no Milan, no Vienna, no London, no New York, no
Rio, no Sydney. No orchestras, no museums, no universities, no
hospitals, no libraries, no theaters, no radio, no books, no
television, no electricity, no refrigeration, no heating, no plumbing,
no houses, no steel, no stadiums, no vaccines, no cars, no planes, no
trains, no ships, no
dentists, no surgeons, no computers, no telephones, and most important
- there's no creative genius to be found that could create and sustain
such a high level of civilization. There's nothing for the people of
this world to build upon. It's just a daily struggle for subsistence.
A brutal planet where the few people who aren't mired in eternal
ignorance and darkness have reached their peak of civilization and are
advancing no further."
Clarence went on to lecture the broken and depressed young man for
seven days straight. He covered everything. History, science,
economics, philosophy, art, literature, fine music, architecture,
medicine, politics, agriculture, religion, and all the creations and
contributions that the European peoples had made in every conceivable
field of human endeavor. George listened closely to every word. He
felt like a man who had been
reborn.
After his lecture, Clarence the Angel floated away towards heaven. "I
hope you have found all this to be educational, and I hope you have
learned an important lesson. Enjoy your world George!" mocked the
departing angel.
George began to sob like a baby. It was the year 2002 and he was alone
and hungry in a backwards world where Europeans had never existed. He
cried out to the stars: "Please God. I see what a fool I've been. I
understand now what my father was trying to tell me. I want to go back
to the world that I came from. A world where Europeans not only
existed, but blessed the rest of humanity world with their unique
creative ability. I want to live in a civilized world. Please
God!...take me back!...take me back!...Oh God....please."
Suddenly George was transported back to his college dormitory. Drunk
with joy, George jumped into the showers before he could even take his
clothes off!.
"Warm water! and soap! Life is beautiful!" he screamed.
George's floor mates looked at him as if he was crazy. "George! Have
you gone crazy?" asked a bewildered schoolmate.
"No my friend. I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them!"
George replied. George then began to sing classic European folk songs
in the shower. Miraculously, he was able to sing in many different
languages. He sang O Sole Mio in Italian, Amazing Grace in English,
Gloire Immortelle in French, Das Ist Der Tag in German, and also
Belgian, Spanish and French ballads and waltzes. Tears of sheer joy
began to stream down his cheeks. The degenerate music of Hip-Hop and
Rap lost all of its appeal to young George.
After his shower, George drove to a nearby restaurant and ordered two
whole entrees. One was Lasagna and the other was a delicious Veal
Marsala. With his Italian food he had a Greek salad with Spanish
olives and Russian dressing, drank a whole bottle of French wine,
followed by a German pastry for dessert. He finished his meal off with
a hot cup of English tea and a Cuban cigar.
George said out loud: "Oh those European peoples and their delicious
cuisine. Clarence was right after all. What a wonderful race!"
George was happy, but at the same time he realized there was much work
to be done. He thought of all those poor whites in Rhodesia and South
Africa who were being murdered and raped ever since they gave up
control of those once-European nations. He thought of the many
thousands of qualified Whites who were passed up for good jobs and
college entrance because of racial quotas that discriminate against
Europeans. He thought about the declining birthrates among all the
European nations of the world. He remembered that
Europeans everywhere were dwindling in numbers every year even as
their own nations were being flooded with third world immigration. He
recalled the O.J. Simpson verdict and how millions of blacks in
America cheered when that brutal double murderer was set free by a
black jury after he stabbed two Whites to death. He remembered the Los
Angeles riots of 1992, where dozens of Whites were dragged out of
their vehicles and killed like dogs in the streets by packs of
White-hating monsters who were never even punished! He remembered the
time when Jesse Jackson led a cheer at Stanford University: "Hey Hey
Ho Ho, Western Civ. has got to go!" His European blood began to
boil in righteous indignation when he recalled how Jesse Jackson once
said he had spit in White people's food when he was a young restaurant
worker. George now understood that that his people were on a collision
course with worldwide disaster and genocide. George realized that this
great people must not perish from the face of the earth.
George could not wait to see his father. He longed to embrace him and
apologize for all of the foolish and disrespectful things he had said
to him. But first, George had a score to settle with a certain college
professor. He walked into Dr. Silverstein's auditorium and quietly
took a seat in the back row. The nasal voiced Silverstein was
lecturing on and on
about racial and gender inequalities in European-centered
civilizations. It was vintage Silverstein. George's impressionable
White schoolmates, with their baggy pants, hip-hop clothes and
backwards baseball caps, were swallowing Silverstein's poison pills
hook, line and sinker. After letting Silverstein spew his cultural
poison for about 15 minutes or so, George raised his hand so that he
could give the professor a piece of his newly educated mind.
"George? Is that you? I remember you from last semester. I wasn't
aware that you were here today. I failed to recognize you in that
shirt and tie, and without your earrings. You must have enjoyed my
course so much that you signed up again eh? Class, I'd like for you to
meet George. He was one of my brightest students last semester. He
truly has a thorough grasp of the ideas presented in this course.
George, would you be so kind as to tell my class about that brilliant
term paper you wrote about European racism,
imperialism, and the need for monetary reparations?"
That's when young George let loose on the unsuspecting Professor.
"ENOUGH! You scheming devil! You mendacious fabricator of falsehoods!
You pusillanimous purveyor of pinko propaganda! How dare you try to
corrupt and manipulate our young minds when your filthy lies. We
Europeans have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for, and
everything to be proud of. And most of all, we don't owe anybody
jack-shit - not one thin dime! To the contrary, it is the rest of
humanity that owes us a debt which can never be repaid! We are the
rightful heirs and protectors of a rich cultural heritage. You vile
manipulator! We are the sons of the Romans, the sons of
the Greeks, the Celtics, the Vikings, the Normans, the Saxons. Why do
you inflict shame and guilt upon us? We Europeans didn't just
contribute to civilization...WE ARE CIVILIZATION! And I declare that I
will no longer tolerate you shithead "intellectuals" trying to tear
our people down. Never again will we walk on eggshells when we speak,
always fearing that we might be called "racist." I no longer care what
people think. All that matters is the truth which you have sought to
pervert!"
"What are you up to anyway? Why do you to corrupt my young peers by
shoving false heroes down their throats. Enough of your Marxist games
of divide and conquer, you commie pinko subversive! I don't want to
learn anymore about Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or
Black History Month. They would not have amounted to anything without
the institutions of high civilization created by the European peoples.
I'm going to set this class straight about who the truly great men of
history are - the European
statesmen, scientists, explorers, monarchs, navigators, conquerors,
inventors, artists, writers, philosophers - the innovative giants of
history that you and your ilk have erased from our collective
memories. You speak of a world liberated from European influence?
Permit me tell your students about such a world, Silverstein, because
I can speak from personal experience, you wretched little conspiring
monster!"
Silverstein turned white as a ghost. He was shell-shocked and rendered
speechless for the first time in his career! Never in all of his years
at the University had a student dared to so boldly challenge his
falsehoods. Speaking from the heart as well as the mind, and with an
eloquence he never thought he could muster, George broke out into a
60-minute monologue on history, science, philosophy, culture, and all
the other attributes that
constitute high civilization. The young students were captivated by
George's brilliant oratory. Many were moved to tears. By the end of
his tirade, George's reawakened classmates were thundering their
approval of his speech. The class gave George a standing ovation and
they thanked him for helping them rediscover and reclaim their own
sense of pride and lost identity. The unstoppable power of truth had
melted away years of Marxist guilt tripping, self hate, wimpishness
and cultural brainwashing in just one unforgettable hour. The inspired
students proceeded to storm out of Silverstein's class,
throwing their hip-hop baseball caps and nose earrings at him as they
stampeded out and vowed never to return. They lifted George up upon
their shoulders and carried him out of the auditorium like a
conquering hero. With a glint in his eye, George glanced up towards
the sky, winked and said "Thank you, Clarence."
Dr. Silverstein was left humiliated and visibly shaken. He knew that
these reawakened European kids could never again be brainwashed with
"political correctness" and White guilt. Silverstein's greatest fear
was that more of these proud European youths would one day reawaken
and take their country and civilization back from the Silversteins of
the world.
Silverstein was worried, but he remained confident that most young men
and women would never learn the truth about their glorious past and
unique creative abilities. After all, the mass media, Hollywood, the
music industry, the colleges, and the public schools are all
controlled by "liberals" like Dr. Silverstein. With the power of
political correctness in their hands, they can continue to tear down
our European ancestors, destroy our
institutions and traditions, instigate blacks and other races against
the whites, flood America with third-world immigration, and push
"hip-hop" music, homosexuality, and other garbage onto a weak,
confused and morally degenerate youth. After reflecting upon these
facts, Silverstein smiled a devilish grin and muttered to himself: "A
few of these European sheep may wake up to what's being done to them,
but the majority of these idiots never will." And he smiled
again....and laughed with diabolical Marxist glee. Then
he repeated to himself "No...they will never figure it all out until
it's too late."
Or will they?
JNugent
Jun 8, 2013, 7:37:14 AM6/8/13
to
On 08/06/2013 10:00, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
> The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
No-one in the UK does unless in a very specific and temporary situation
> On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
> The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
(see below).
> Evidently you accept that some people are so poor that they must. In
> my experience, the two biggest factors creating need for food banks,
> are debt collectors who harass or threaten people into handing over
> more money than they can afford (or who seize it directly from their
> bank accounts), and benefit 'problems' (including sanctions, delays,
> and other administrative interruptions to a claimant's normal income
> of a pittance). That is the reality of food banks.
("mugged") or defrauded.
That it happens in some cases is not doubted. But it certainly has NOT
happened to everyone whom you describe as "[having] to queue at food
banks".
> In maybe one in ten cases, there is something doubtful about the food
> bank user's immediate need for food (which is the crisis that food
> banks are supposed to alleviate),
(from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), your proportions are at
least the wrong way round.
It would only be (something less than) your one in ten who was genuinely
in need of food and - crucially - unable to provide it out of their own
resources.
The other 90%+ are (quite rationally, even if that is not a word they
themselves would use) choosing to get a handout in order to free up some
of their income for other purposes.
> but what is never in question is
> that the people who use food banks are extremely poor.
specific and temporary situation (because everyone can get more than
enough money for food, from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), what
does "extremely poor" mean?
There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
week in benefits.
> Like the
> 'beggar on £50k' story the other day, some of the very poorest do not
> remain impotent and passive in the receipt of charity, but actively
> appropriate for themselves as much of the available charity as
> possible. But, like the 'beggar on £50k', what nobody doubts is that
> without charitable assistance, the underlying structure of our society
> means that these people would be extremely poor indeed.
JNugent
Jun 8, 2013, 7:38:05 AM6/8/13
to
On 08/06/2013 10:20, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
>> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
>> if the White man is more qualified.
>
> And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
> and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
> complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
> way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
You *are* trying to get into Pseud's Corner with that, aren't you?
> On Jun 8, 3:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
>> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
>> if the White man is more qualified.
>
> And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
> and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
> complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
> way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
JNugent
Jun 8, 2013, 7:43:01 AM6/8/13
to
On 08/06/2013 10:59, Topaz wrote:
> Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
>> and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
>> complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
>> way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
> The reason Blacks are poor is not because Whites oppress them, but
> because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
> 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.
[snipped a thousand lines or so, unread]
> Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
>> and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
>> complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
>> way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
> The reason Blacks are poor is not because Whites oppress them, but
> because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
> 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.
You are as entitled as anyone to misapply recognised terms, but you must
surely be aware that whilst your definitions of the phrases "first
world" and "third world" are more or less correct, the "second world"
was the socialist bloc (USSR, Eastern Europe, China and satellites, Cuba).
The second world still exists in the form of China, Vietnam, North Korea
(etc) and Cuba, so the phrase is not yet available for other uses.
Ste
Jun 9, 2013, 4:50:06 AM6/9/13
to
On Jun 8, 10:59 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 02:20:49 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
effect.
And even if blacks were "less intelligent on average" (for whatever
reason), the overlap between whites and blacks is such that it
wouldn't justify anything but the most subtle disparity.
And finally, wealth is not in fact allocated according to measured
intelligence, and nor do people generally accept that it should be. As
such, *even if* whites are more intelligent, if you don't accept that
this should justify an income disparity, then intelligence would be
neither here nor there.
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world.
I think for something like 18 of the last 20 centuries, China has been
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.
East Asians are invariably darker than Northern European whites - and
they consistently score high on IQ tests.
Also, you don't think a more credible connection is simply between
skin colour and climate?
> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
> intelligent than Blacks.
And university degrees prove that whites are on average much more
educated than blacks. But no one supposes that educational
qualifications are an innate trait.
> White people invented just about everything
> important.
Lol.
> Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
> the tests.
I expect most do. Most leftists would also admit that slaves were
often inclined to run away from their masters, but query it's former
classification as a psychiatric illness in need of 'treatment'. The
point of such classification and treatment was to reinforce a certain
kind of social order - to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to
its existing structure and to its brutal treatment of dissent - rather
than measuring any innate qualities or potentials of the black slave.
> They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
> are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.
I doubt it.
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 02:20:49 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
> >and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
> >complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
> >way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
>
> The reason Blacks are poor is not because Whites oppress them, but
> because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
The two things are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact cause and
>
> >And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
> >and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
> >complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
> >way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
>
> The reason Blacks are poor is not because Whites oppress them, but
> because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
effect.
And even if blacks were "less intelligent on average" (for whatever
reason), the overlap between whites and blacks is such that it
wouldn't justify anything but the most subtle disparity.
And finally, wealth is not in fact allocated according to measured
intelligence, and nor do people generally accept that it should be. As
such, *even if* whites are more intelligent, if you don't accept that
this should justify an income disparity, then intelligence would be
neither here nor there.
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world.
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.
they consistently score high on IQ tests.
Also, you don't think a more credible connection is simply between
skin colour and climate?
> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
> intelligent than Blacks.
educated than blacks. But no one supposes that educational
qualifications are an innate trait.
> White people invented just about everything
> important.
> Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
> the tests.
often inclined to run away from their masters, but query it's former
classification as a psychiatric illness in need of 'treatment'. The
point of such classification and treatment was to reinforce a certain
kind of social order - to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to
its existing structure and to its brutal treatment of dissent - rather
than measuring any innate qualities or potentials of the black slave.
> They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
> are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.
Topaz
Jun 9, 2013, 5:44:09 AM6/9/13
to
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 01:50:06 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>> The reason Blacks are poor is not because Whites oppress them, but
>> because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
>
>The two things are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact cause and
>effect.
>
>And even if blacks were "less intelligent on average" (for whatever
>reason), the overlap between whites and blacks is such that it
>wouldn't justify anything but the most subtle disparity.
Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
now mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that
seemed to always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with
peeling paint an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some
old holdouts in the neighborhood, they told me that the once rare
burglary, vandalism and assault had now become commonplace. The
diehard White remnants who remained had adapted to the changes and
found a way to endure each indignity and violation the best they
could. The change had been so gradual that they were no longer shocked
by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.
"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men
standing around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously
unknown White person trespassing in their neighborhood.
"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my
memories became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the
neighborhood. It seemed as though I had only been away a few scant
hours. Now those memories crashed against the images of the present
causing me to feel off balance. It was akin to visiting a healthy
friend and then after a few short weeks to see him wasting away with
cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection was more idealized than it
really was--as soon as I returned home, I ferreted out my old
photographs.
"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive
than I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often
accented with blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks
edged closely, and many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos
dotted the clean streets. Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and
Becky Thatcher-like bright faces of the children with whom I spent so
many happy hours of childhood.
"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets
yards and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry
teenagers, with scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and
crack in their pockets, menacing the streets where children now fear
to venture. A picture repeated, I believe, all over the United States
of America. For the current White residents of Gentilly Woods their
story is much like the story fo the frog that is put in a pot of warm
water while the temperature is slowly increased until the poor
creature is boiling and it is too late to save itself. Is the
traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water to realize
what is ahead?
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."
The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org
>
>And finally, wealth is not in fact allocated according to measured
>intelligence, and nor do people generally accept that it should be. As
>such, *even if* whites are more intelligent, if you don't accept that
>this should justify an income disparity, then intelligence would be
>neither here nor there.
>
>
>
>> The former White nations and Japan are the first world.
>
>I think for something like 18 of the last 20 centuries, China has been
>the "first world".
Indo-European: The Mummies of Xinjiang
The Mummies of Xinjiang
In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have
unearthed more than 100 corpses hat are as much s 4,000 years old.
Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian.
One glimpse of the corpses was enough to shock Victor Mair profoundly.
In 1987, Mair, a professor of Chinese at the University of
Pennsylvania, was leading a tour group through a museum in the Chinese
city of Urumqi, in the central Asian province of Xinjiang, when he
accidentally strayed into gloomy, newly opened room. There, under
glass, lay the recently discovered corpses of a family - a man, a
woman, and a child of two or three - each clad in long, dark purple
woolen garments and felt boots. Even today I get chills thinking about
that first encounter," says Mair. "The Chinese said they were 3,000
years old, yet the bodies looked as if they were buried yesterday."
But the real shock came when Mair looked closely at their faces. In
contrast to most central Asian peoples,these corpses had obvious
Caucasian, or European, features - blond hair, long noses, deep-set
eyes, and long skulls."I was thunderstruck," Mair recalls. "Even
though I was supposed to be leading a tour group, I just couldn't
leave that room. The questions kept nagging at me: Who were these
people? How did they get out here at such an early date?"
The corpses Mair saw that day were just a few of more than 100 dug up
by
Chinese archeologists over the past 16 years. All of them are
astonishingly
well preserved.They come from four major burial sites scattered
between the arid foothills of the Tian Shan ("Celestial Mountains") in
northwest China and the fringes of the The Taklimakan Desert, some 150
miles due south. All together, these bodies,dating from about 2000
B.C. to 300 B.C., constitute significant addition to the world's
catalog of prehistoric mummies. Unlike the roughly contemporaneous
mummies of ancient Egypt, the Xinjiang mummies were not ruler or
nobles; they were not interred in pyramids or other such monuments,nor
were they subjected to deliberate mummification procedures.
They were preserved merely by being buried in the parched, stony
desert, where daytime temperatures often soar over 100 degrees. In the
heat the bodies were quickly dried, with facial hair, skin, and other
tissues remaining largely intact.
Where exactly did these apparent Caucasians come from? And what were
they doing at remote desert oases in central Asia?
Any answers to these questions will most likely fuel a wide-ranging
debate about the role outsiders played in the rise of Chinese
civilization. As far back as the second century B.C., Chinese texts
refer to alien peoples called the Yuezhi and the Wusun, who lived on
China's far western borders; the texts make it clear that these people
were regarded as troublesome "barbarians." Until recently, scholars
have tended to downplay evidence of any early trade or contact between
China and the West, regarding the development of Chinese civilization
as an essentially homegrown affair scaled off from outside influences;
indeed, this view is still extremely congenial to the present Chinese
regime. Yet some archeologists have begun to argue that these supposed
barbarians might have been responsible for introducing into China such
basic items as the wheel and the first metal objects. Exactly who
these central Asian outsiders might have been, however what language
they spoke and where they came from - is a puzzle. No wonder, then,
that scholars see the discovery of the blond mummies as a sensational
new clue...
Most researchers now think the birthplace of horsedrawn vehicles and
horse riding was in the steppes east and west of the Urals rather than
in China or the Near East. As archeologist David Anthony and his
colleagues have shown through microscopic study of ancient horse
teeth, horses were already being harnessed in the Ukraine 6,000 years
ago. The Ukraine horses, Anthony found, show a particular kind of
tooth wear identical to that of modern horses that "fight the bit."
The world's earliest high-status vehicles also seem to have originated
in the steppes; recent discoveries of wooden chariots with elaborate
spoked wheels were reported by Anthony to date to around 2000 B.C.
Chariots do not seem to have appeared in China until some 800 years
later...
had wagons and well-tailored clothes. Were they mere goat and sheep
farmers? Or did they profit from or even control prehistoric trade
along the route that later became the Silk Road? If so, they probably
helped spread the first wheels and certain metalworking skills into
China.
"Ultimately I think our project may end up having tremendous
implications for the origins of Chinese civilization," Mair reflects.
"For all their incredible inventiveness, the ancient Chinese weren't
cut off from the rest of the world, and influences didn't just flow
one way, from China westward."
Unfortunately, economics dictates that answers will be slow in coming.
The Chinese have the money to spare for this work, and Wang and his
team continue to operate on a shoestring. Currently most of the
corpses and artifacts are stored in a damp, crowded basement room at
the Institute of Archeology in Urumqi, in conditions that threaten
their continued preservation. If Mair's plans for a museum can be
financed with Western help, perhaps the mummies can be moved. Then,
finally, they'll receive the study and attention that will ultimately
unlock their secrets.
>East Asians are invariably darker than Northern European whites - and
>they consistently score high on IQ tests.
>
>Also, you don't think a more credible connection is simply between
>skin colour and climate?
"The Great Separation, in which proto-Whites left Africans behind, was
a turning point in the upward evolution of Man. Have we reached
another, downward, turning point?
Only the most ambitious of the early humans in Africa possessed the
curiosity to venture beyond their "comfort zone" and migrate out of
the continent in search of new adventures and opportunities. It was
this northward migration that exposed our progenitors to the new
climates and environments that would guide their evolution. This was
the historic moment that signaled the future birth of our race and all
its advancements-and the relatively backward nature of those tribes
who remained in the tropics.
Leaving their predecessors behind, the fledgling stock pushed onward.
Changing selection pressures would favor those mutations that bestowed
upon the new stock reasoning abilities, deductive thinking, and logic.
These traits would be necessary in order for the new breed of man, the
White man, to survive the colder climates to the north.
The winter season brings new challenges and obstacles to the stock.
For months at a time the fertile soil becomes a frozen, barren land,
incapable of cultivation-an inhospitable climate where even short
exposures can quickly lead to frostbite and death. Gone were the days
of endless warmth and pursuing only those behaviors that offered the
reward of immediate gratification. The new breed needed to have the
vision to see into the future and make plans ahead of time, if they
were to survive.
Through a long and rigorous process, subsistence hunting and food
gathering, and building temporary structures from mud or straw were
replaced by agriculture, domestication of livestock, and true
architecture. These are among hallmarks of civilization achieved by
early Whites. And it was only when the fundamental problems of day-to-
day survival had been solved that the mind could be free to ponder the
higher things in life-and the infinite possibilities of the future. A
future with automobiles, refrigerators, television, radios, cell
phones, satellites, and space travel. Look around you: the White man
invented virtually everything you see.
The paucity of invention by sub-Saharan Africans-it is virtually
nil-is evident. This lack of creative thinking is so because the
Africans left behind did not follow the proto-Whites along their
migration routes out of Africa-and hence did not evolve in the same
way. It was the genetic response to the changing selection pressures
generated by the exposure to the colder climates of the north that
elicited the changes in the genome that made our race, civilization,
and mighty technology possible.
To this day, the Blacks who remain in their cradle of comfort along
the equatorial zones of the earth, as well as those transplanted
around the world by slavery in recent centuries, remain several steps
below the White men and women of the West in measured intelligence,
self-restraint, civilized behavior, artistic and scientific
accomplishments, and sexual morality.
Just as the transitions from ape-like creatures to pre-man and then to
early African man were giant steps for mankind, so too was the
transformation of early African man into the White European race
during his eons-long journey to the north. It was Whites who gave us
the architecture of the Parthenon, the Pantheon and St. Basil's
cathedral, the music of Mozart and Beethoven, the artwork of
Michelangelo and Monet, and the vision of Galileo. It was the vast
collection of knowledge assimilated by the white European minds of
scientists like Newton and Maxwell that gave us our vast understanding
of chemistry and the laws of physics-and all the power that implies.
Meanwhile, the tribes of sub-Saharan Africa, regardless of where they
may have relocated in modern times, are still swatting flies, digging
grubs and sacrificing chickens.
In some ways, slavery was the best thing that ever happened to the
Blacks-who never could have found their way to America (and the
gravy-train provided by guilt-ridden Whites) on their own. Even today,
native Blacks have never shown the capability to build a boat capable
of crossing the Atlantic. Enslavement, torture, rape, and murder were
hardly unique to the Black slaves taken to America-such was the norm
in Africa (most of the transported slaves were already slaves while
there) and slavery remains an institution there to this day. In our
world's rich history of war, every race has suffered brutal treatment,
attempted genocide, and forced emigration at the hands of rival races
and nations. Even today in Africa, Blacks are hunted down, raped,
tortured, enslaved, and killed by the millions-at the hands of their
own "brothers."
Here in America, Blacks enjoy ample food, clean water, and the
opportunity for a good education, as well as the innumerable modern
conveniences we all take for granted. Blacks get to be entertainment
stars and athletes... but still, they complain about the White man.
They riot in the streets and commit a disproportionately high amount
of crime. Even very successful Blacks, who "have it all," like O. J.
Simpson, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson find it difficult to rise
above their genetic propensity for violence or disrespect toward
others. The savage behavior of Black sports stars toward White women
is so legendary that it's become a part of folklore and taken almost
for granted, as is the brutal deviant sexual behavior of Black men in
prison, with young White males the usual victims.
Most alarming to decent Whites is the current push in America for
White girls to misuse their wombs as cradles for primitive Congoid
genes-instead of for the sacred purpose for which they were intended.
While such "mothers" are exalted by the Jewish media as shining
beacons of light for a new, multiracial society, their children have
been condemned to inherit genes hundreds of thousands of years behind
those that built the West. They have been robbed of their genetic
potential. The mother and her thousands of generations of ancestors'
contribution to the forward evolution of life have come to a
screeching halt. The African DNA wraps itself like a parasitic vine
around the White helix, chocking the life out of it. This is an act of
genocide against our people, and should be prosecuted as such.
Schools, under the thumb of our enemies or in the thrall of the
"equality" religion, have relaxed academic eligibility requirements.
They must eliminate all evidence of racial inequality and "close the
education gap" between Whites and non-Whites-or risk losing funding.
If we can't bring the minorities up to the achievement levels of the
Whites, we'll bring the Whites down to their level. If we can't bring
the bottom of the bell curve up, we'll bring the top down. That way,
they'll all be equal-equally stupid.
And is that not what we are seeing-not just in the schools, but
everywhere in our society?
When you look around, do you see evidence that Blacks have conformed
to White standards of culture, civility, and grace? -- or do you see
Whites conforming to Black norms of disrespect, crudity, ugliness, and
ignorance? Do you see Black kids walking down the street dressed in
fine clothes, listening to Mozart, and carrying their physics books?
-- or are you more likely to see White children wearing baggy gang
clothes, listening to "rap," sporting multiple body piercings (an
African custom), speaking Ebonics, with a concealed crack pipe in
their pocket, and obsessed with empty, lower-than-animal sex?
On the whole, have the Whites influenced the Blacks in a positive
direction, or have the Blacks influenced the Whites in a negative
direction? Even if the answer is "some of both," there is no way to
argue that we of the West have gained in any way by the association."
Fritz Wuehler
>
>> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
>> intelligent than Blacks.
>
>And university degrees prove that whites are on average much more
>educated than blacks. But no one supposes that educational
>qualifications are an innate trait.
>
>
>> White people invented just about everything
>> important.
>
>Lol.
>
Thank White people for:
- that computer you're typing on
- the software that drives it
- recorded music
- motion pictures
- tv
- radio
- camera
- telephone
- light bulb
- the automobile
- rocketry
- satellites
- spacecraft
- airplanes
- skyscrapers
- metallurgy (most discoveries)
- materials science (plastics, compounds, & most other synthetics)
- 95% of medical advancements
- 95% of life saving pharmaceutical drugs
- most scientific breakthroughs over the past 1000 years
- the bulk of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology
- discovery of DNA
- laser technology and it's myriad of uses
- harnessing electricity
- nuclear energy
- wireless technology
- air conditioning devices
- refrigeration
- modern agricultural techniques
Where would the world be without White people? Stuck in the stone
age, that's where.
So the next time you get in your car, pick up your cell phone, fly a
plane, etc. thank White people.
jimj
>
>> Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
>> the tests.
>
>I expect most do. Most leftists would also admit that slaves were
>often inclined to run away from their masters, but query it's former
>classification as a psychiatric illness in need of 'treatment'. The
>point of such classification and treatment was to reinforce a certain
>kind of social order - to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to
>its existing structure and to its brutal treatment of dissent - rather
>than measuring any innate qualities or potentials of the black slave.
>
>
>
>> They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
>> are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.
>
>I doubt it.
"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.
He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest
crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.
He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the
world. etc, etc.
He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.
Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.
He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and hear it for yourself.."
Tommy
wrote:
>> The reason Blacks are poor is not because Whites oppress them, but
>> because Blacks are on average much less intelligent than Whites.
>
>The two things are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact cause and
>effect.
>
>And even if blacks were "less intelligent on average" (for whatever
>reason), the overlap between whites and blacks is such that it
>wouldn't justify anything but the most subtle disparity.
"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
now mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that
seemed to always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with
peeling paint an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some
old holdouts in the neighborhood, they told me that the once rare
burglary, vandalism and assault had now become commonplace. The
diehard White remnants who remained had adapted to the changes and
found a way to endure each indignity and violation the best they
could. The change had been so gradual that they were no longer shocked
by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.
"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men
standing around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously
unknown White person trespassing in their neighborhood.
"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my
memories became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the
neighborhood. It seemed as though I had only been away a few scant
hours. Now those memories crashed against the images of the present
causing me to feel off balance. It was akin to visiting a healthy
friend and then after a few short weeks to see him wasting away with
cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection was more idealized than it
really was--as soon as I returned home, I ferreted out my old
photographs.
"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive
than I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often
accented with blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks
edged closely, and many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos
dotted the clean streets. Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and
Becky Thatcher-like bright faces of the children with whom I spent so
many happy hours of childhood.
"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets
yards and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry
teenagers, with scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and
crack in their pockets, menacing the streets where children now fear
to venture. A picture repeated, I believe, all over the United States
of America. For the current White residents of Gentilly Woods their
story is much like the story fo the frog that is put in a pot of warm
water while the temperature is slowly increased until the poor
creature is boiling and it is too late to save itself. Is the
traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water to realize
what is ahead?
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."
The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org
>
>And finally, wealth is not in fact allocated according to measured
>intelligence, and nor do people generally accept that it should be. As
>such, *even if* whites are more intelligent, if you don't accept that
>this should justify an income disparity, then intelligence would be
>neither here nor there.
>
>
>
>> The former White nations and Japan are the first world.
>
>I think for something like 18 of the last 20 centuries, China has been
>the "first world".
The Mummies of Xinjiang
In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have
unearthed more than 100 corpses hat are as much s 4,000 years old.
Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian.
One glimpse of the corpses was enough to shock Victor Mair profoundly.
In 1987, Mair, a professor of Chinese at the University of
Pennsylvania, was leading a tour group through a museum in the Chinese
city of Urumqi, in the central Asian province of Xinjiang, when he
accidentally strayed into gloomy, newly opened room. There, under
glass, lay the recently discovered corpses of a family - a man, a
woman, and a child of two or three - each clad in long, dark purple
woolen garments and felt boots. Even today I get chills thinking about
that first encounter," says Mair. "The Chinese said they were 3,000
years old, yet the bodies looked as if they were buried yesterday."
But the real shock came when Mair looked closely at their faces. In
contrast to most central Asian peoples,these corpses had obvious
Caucasian, or European, features - blond hair, long noses, deep-set
eyes, and long skulls."I was thunderstruck," Mair recalls. "Even
though I was supposed to be leading a tour group, I just couldn't
leave that room. The questions kept nagging at me: Who were these
people? How did they get out here at such an early date?"
The corpses Mair saw that day were just a few of more than 100 dug up
by
Chinese archeologists over the past 16 years. All of them are
astonishingly
well preserved.They come from four major burial sites scattered
between the arid foothills of the Tian Shan ("Celestial Mountains") in
northwest China and the fringes of the The Taklimakan Desert, some 150
miles due south. All together, these bodies,dating from about 2000
B.C. to 300 B.C., constitute significant addition to the world's
catalog of prehistoric mummies. Unlike the roughly contemporaneous
mummies of ancient Egypt, the Xinjiang mummies were not ruler or
nobles; they were not interred in pyramids or other such monuments,nor
were they subjected to deliberate mummification procedures.
They were preserved merely by being buried in the parched, stony
desert, where daytime temperatures often soar over 100 degrees. In the
heat the bodies were quickly dried, with facial hair, skin, and other
tissues remaining largely intact.
Where exactly did these apparent Caucasians come from? And what were
they doing at remote desert oases in central Asia?
Any answers to these questions will most likely fuel a wide-ranging
debate about the role outsiders played in the rise of Chinese
civilization. As far back as the second century B.C., Chinese texts
refer to alien peoples called the Yuezhi and the Wusun, who lived on
China's far western borders; the texts make it clear that these people
were regarded as troublesome "barbarians." Until recently, scholars
have tended to downplay evidence of any early trade or contact between
China and the West, regarding the development of Chinese civilization
as an essentially homegrown affair scaled off from outside influences;
indeed, this view is still extremely congenial to the present Chinese
regime. Yet some archeologists have begun to argue that these supposed
barbarians might have been responsible for introducing into China such
basic items as the wheel and the first metal objects. Exactly who
these central Asian outsiders might have been, however what language
they spoke and where they came from - is a puzzle. No wonder, then,
that scholars see the discovery of the blond mummies as a sensational
new clue...
Most researchers now think the birthplace of horsedrawn vehicles and
horse riding was in the steppes east and west of the Urals rather than
in China or the Near East. As archeologist David Anthony and his
colleagues have shown through microscopic study of ancient horse
teeth, horses were already being harnessed in the Ukraine 6,000 years
ago. The Ukraine horses, Anthony found, show a particular kind of
tooth wear identical to that of modern horses that "fight the bit."
The world's earliest high-status vehicles also seem to have originated
in the steppes; recent discoveries of wooden chariots with elaborate
spoked wheels were reported by Anthony to date to around 2000 B.C.
Chariots do not seem to have appeared in China until some 800 years
later...
had wagons and well-tailored clothes. Were they mere goat and sheep
farmers? Or did they profit from or even control prehistoric trade
along the route that later became the Silk Road? If so, they probably
helped spread the first wheels and certain metalworking skills into
China.
"Ultimately I think our project may end up having tremendous
implications for the origins of Chinese civilization," Mair reflects.
"For all their incredible inventiveness, the ancient Chinese weren't
cut off from the rest of the world, and influences didn't just flow
one way, from China westward."
Unfortunately, economics dictates that answers will be slow in coming.
The Chinese have the money to spare for this work, and Wang and his
team continue to operate on a shoestring. Currently most of the
corpses and artifacts are stored in a damp, crowded basement room at
the Institute of Archeology in Urumqi, in conditions that threaten
their continued preservation. If Mair's plans for a museum can be
financed with Western help, perhaps the mummies can be moved. Then,
finally, they'll receive the study and attention that will ultimately
unlock their secrets.
>East Asians are invariably darker than Northern European whites - and
>they consistently score high on IQ tests.
>
>Also, you don't think a more credible connection is simply between
>skin colour and climate?
a turning point in the upward evolution of Man. Have we reached
another, downward, turning point?
Only the most ambitious of the early humans in Africa possessed the
curiosity to venture beyond their "comfort zone" and migrate out of
the continent in search of new adventures and opportunities. It was
this northward migration that exposed our progenitors to the new
climates and environments that would guide their evolution. This was
the historic moment that signaled the future birth of our race and all
its advancements-and the relatively backward nature of those tribes
who remained in the tropics.
Leaving their predecessors behind, the fledgling stock pushed onward.
Changing selection pressures would favor those mutations that bestowed
upon the new stock reasoning abilities, deductive thinking, and logic.
These traits would be necessary in order for the new breed of man, the
White man, to survive the colder climates to the north.
The winter season brings new challenges and obstacles to the stock.
For months at a time the fertile soil becomes a frozen, barren land,
incapable of cultivation-an inhospitable climate where even short
exposures can quickly lead to frostbite and death. Gone were the days
of endless warmth and pursuing only those behaviors that offered the
reward of immediate gratification. The new breed needed to have the
vision to see into the future and make plans ahead of time, if they
were to survive.
Through a long and rigorous process, subsistence hunting and food
gathering, and building temporary structures from mud or straw were
replaced by agriculture, domestication of livestock, and true
architecture. These are among hallmarks of civilization achieved by
early Whites. And it was only when the fundamental problems of day-to-
day survival had been solved that the mind could be free to ponder the
higher things in life-and the infinite possibilities of the future. A
future with automobiles, refrigerators, television, radios, cell
phones, satellites, and space travel. Look around you: the White man
invented virtually everything you see.
The paucity of invention by sub-Saharan Africans-it is virtually
nil-is evident. This lack of creative thinking is so because the
Africans left behind did not follow the proto-Whites along their
migration routes out of Africa-and hence did not evolve in the same
way. It was the genetic response to the changing selection pressures
generated by the exposure to the colder climates of the north that
elicited the changes in the genome that made our race, civilization,
and mighty technology possible.
To this day, the Blacks who remain in their cradle of comfort along
the equatorial zones of the earth, as well as those transplanted
around the world by slavery in recent centuries, remain several steps
below the White men and women of the West in measured intelligence,
self-restraint, civilized behavior, artistic and scientific
accomplishments, and sexual morality.
Just as the transitions from ape-like creatures to pre-man and then to
early African man were giant steps for mankind, so too was the
transformation of early African man into the White European race
during his eons-long journey to the north. It was Whites who gave us
the architecture of the Parthenon, the Pantheon and St. Basil's
cathedral, the music of Mozart and Beethoven, the artwork of
Michelangelo and Monet, and the vision of Galileo. It was the vast
collection of knowledge assimilated by the white European minds of
scientists like Newton and Maxwell that gave us our vast understanding
of chemistry and the laws of physics-and all the power that implies.
Meanwhile, the tribes of sub-Saharan Africa, regardless of where they
may have relocated in modern times, are still swatting flies, digging
grubs and sacrificing chickens.
In some ways, slavery was the best thing that ever happened to the
Blacks-who never could have found their way to America (and the
gravy-train provided by guilt-ridden Whites) on their own. Even today,
native Blacks have never shown the capability to build a boat capable
of crossing the Atlantic. Enslavement, torture, rape, and murder were
hardly unique to the Black slaves taken to America-such was the norm
in Africa (most of the transported slaves were already slaves while
there) and slavery remains an institution there to this day. In our
world's rich history of war, every race has suffered brutal treatment,
attempted genocide, and forced emigration at the hands of rival races
and nations. Even today in Africa, Blacks are hunted down, raped,
tortured, enslaved, and killed by the millions-at the hands of their
own "brothers."
Here in America, Blacks enjoy ample food, clean water, and the
opportunity for a good education, as well as the innumerable modern
conveniences we all take for granted. Blacks get to be entertainment
stars and athletes... but still, they complain about the White man.
They riot in the streets and commit a disproportionately high amount
of crime. Even very successful Blacks, who "have it all," like O. J.
Simpson, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson find it difficult to rise
above their genetic propensity for violence or disrespect toward
others. The savage behavior of Black sports stars toward White women
is so legendary that it's become a part of folklore and taken almost
for granted, as is the brutal deviant sexual behavior of Black men in
prison, with young White males the usual victims.
Most alarming to decent Whites is the current push in America for
White girls to misuse their wombs as cradles for primitive Congoid
genes-instead of for the sacred purpose for which they were intended.
While such "mothers" are exalted by the Jewish media as shining
beacons of light for a new, multiracial society, their children have
been condemned to inherit genes hundreds of thousands of years behind
those that built the West. They have been robbed of their genetic
potential. The mother and her thousands of generations of ancestors'
contribution to the forward evolution of life have come to a
screeching halt. The African DNA wraps itself like a parasitic vine
around the White helix, chocking the life out of it. This is an act of
genocide against our people, and should be prosecuted as such.
Schools, under the thumb of our enemies or in the thrall of the
"equality" religion, have relaxed academic eligibility requirements.
They must eliminate all evidence of racial inequality and "close the
education gap" between Whites and non-Whites-or risk losing funding.
If we can't bring the minorities up to the achievement levels of the
Whites, we'll bring the Whites down to their level. If we can't bring
the bottom of the bell curve up, we'll bring the top down. That way,
they'll all be equal-equally stupid.
And is that not what we are seeing-not just in the schools, but
everywhere in our society?
When you look around, do you see evidence that Blacks have conformed
to White standards of culture, civility, and grace? -- or do you see
Whites conforming to Black norms of disrespect, crudity, ugliness, and
ignorance? Do you see Black kids walking down the street dressed in
fine clothes, listening to Mozart, and carrying their physics books?
-- or are you more likely to see White children wearing baggy gang
clothes, listening to "rap," sporting multiple body piercings (an
African custom), speaking Ebonics, with a concealed crack pipe in
their pocket, and obsessed with empty, lower-than-animal sex?
On the whole, have the Whites influenced the Blacks in a positive
direction, or have the Blacks influenced the Whites in a negative
direction? Even if the answer is "some of both," there is no way to
argue that we of the West have gained in any way by the association."
Fritz Wuehler
>
>> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
>> intelligent than Blacks.
>
>And university degrees prove that whites are on average much more
>educated than blacks. But no one supposes that educational
>qualifications are an innate trait.
>
>
>> White people invented just about everything
>> important.
>
>Lol.
>
- that computer you're typing on
- the software that drives it
- recorded music
- motion pictures
- tv
- radio
- camera
- telephone
- light bulb
- the automobile
- rocketry
- satellites
- spacecraft
- airplanes
- skyscrapers
- metallurgy (most discoveries)
- materials science (plastics, compounds, & most other synthetics)
- 95% of medical advancements
- 95% of life saving pharmaceutical drugs
- most scientific breakthroughs over the past 1000 years
- the bulk of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology
- discovery of DNA
- laser technology and it's myriad of uses
- harnessing electricity
- nuclear energy
- wireless technology
- air conditioning devices
- refrigeration
- modern agricultural techniques
Where would the world be without White people? Stuck in the stone
age, that's where.
So the next time you get in your car, pick up your cell phone, fly a
plane, etc. thank White people.
jimj
>
>> Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
>> the tests.
>
>I expect most do. Most leftists would also admit that slaves were
>often inclined to run away from their masters, but query it's former
>classification as a psychiatric illness in need of 'treatment'. The
>point of such classification and treatment was to reinforce a certain
>kind of social order - to give a veneer of scientific legitimacy to
>its existing structure and to its brutal treatment of dissent - rather
>than measuring any innate qualities or potentials of the black slave.
>
>
>
>> They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
>> are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.
>
>I doubt it.
the Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.
He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest
crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.
He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the
world. etc, etc.
He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.
Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.
He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and hear it for yourself.."
Tommy
Ste
Jun 9, 2013, 6:40:50 AM6/9/13
to
On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 08/06/2013 10:00, Ste wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
> > The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
>
> No-one in the UK does unless in a very specific and temporary situation
> (see below).
I would not have to queue at a food bank under any foreseeable
> On 08/06/2013 10:00, Ste wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
> > The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
>
> No-one in the UK does unless in a very specific and temporary situation
> (see below).
circumstances. You don't seem to comprehend the necessary level of
deprivation, not just for the individual but for the whole community
in which they live.
> > Evidently you accept that some people are so poor that they must. In
> > my experience, the two biggest factors creating need for food banks,
> > are debt collectors who harass or threaten people into handing over
> > more money than they can afford (or who seize it directly from their
> > bank accounts), and benefit 'problems' (including sanctions, delays,
> > and other administrative interruptions to a claimant's normal income
> > of a pittance). That is the reality of food banks.
>
> That is absolutely no different in principle from having been robbed
> ("mugged") or defrauded.
>
> That it happens in some cases is not doubted. But it certainly has NOT
> happened to everyone whom you describe as "[having] to queue at food
> banks".
assure you that it is indeed the case.
> > In maybe one in ten cases, there is something doubtful about the food
> > bank user's immediate need for food (which is the crisis that food
> > banks are supposed to alleviate),
>
> In fact, given that everyone can get more than enough money for food
> (from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), your proportions are at
> least the wrong way round.
they are not getting, and *cannot* get, enough money for food that is
needed immediately. You seem to have a neurological problem that
prevents you from digesting exactly what is being said.
> It would only be (something less than) your one in ten who was genuinely
> in need of food and - crucially - unable to provide it out of their own
> resources.
in ten offered food parcels are merely poor, but not thought to be
immediately facing hunger (or facing any other sudden crisis which
they claim to be facing). The majority of crises can be independently
verified, and often are verified in the normal course of providing
other kinds of assistance to such people - as I say, the vast majority
involve either the DWP, the taxman, or debt collection firms.
> The other 90%+ are (quite rationally, even if that is not a word they
> themselves would use) choosing to get a handout in order to free up some
> of their income for other purposes.
that all food bank users are essentially behaving "rationally" in
seeking to receive food - is charity something that can only be
allowed to the irrational?
> > but what is never in question is
> > that the people who use food banks are extremely poor.
>
> Given that no-one in the UK needs to "use" a foodbank unless in a very
> specific and temporary situation (because everyone can get more than
> enough money for food, from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), what
> does "extremely poor" mean?
conceivable situation, however specific and temporary.
> There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
> insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
> week in benefits.
were talking out of your arse, and that he was not receiving £1,400! I
also pointed out several times that he and his various wives and
mistresses, were actually often working, and Philpott was an ex-
British Army soldier!
> > Like the
> > 'beggar on £50k' story the other day, some of the very poorest do not
> > remain impotent and passive in the receipt of charity, but actively
> > appropriate for themselves as much of the available charity as
> > possible. But, like the 'beggar on £50k', what nobody doubts is that
> > without charitable assistance, the underlying structure of our society
> > means that these people would be extremely poor indeed.
>
> Lots of people doubt it, and with good reason: it's patent nonsense.
JNugent
Jun 9, 2013, 7:50:15 AM6/9/13
to
On 09/06/2013 11:40, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/06/2013 10:00, Ste wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
>>> The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
>
>> No-one in the UK does unless in a very specific and temporary situation
>> (see below).
>
> I would not have to queue at a food bank under any foreseeable
> circumstances. You don't seem to comprehend the necessary level of
> deprivation, not just for the individual but for the whole community
> in which they live.
You *don't* have to queue at a food bank, any more than I do. *If*
> On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/06/2013 10:00, Ste wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
>>> The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
>
>> No-one in the UK does unless in a very specific and temporary situation
>> (see below).
>
> I would not have to queue at a food bank under any foreseeable
> circumstances. You don't seem to comprehend the necessary level of
> deprivation, not just for the individual but for the whole community
> in which they live.
either of us "needed" to queue at a food-bank, that would have nothing
to do with, and would not be remotely caused by, the state of affluence
or otherwise of anyone who lives in the community or communities where
we reside.
IOW, your little sound-bite is empty rhetoric.
>>> Evidently you accept that some people are so poor that they must. In
>>> my experience, the two biggest factors creating need for food banks,
>>> are debt collectors who harass or threaten people into handing over
>>> more money than they can afford (or who seize it directly from their
>>> bank accounts), and benefit 'problems' (including sanctions, delays,
>>> and other administrative interruptions to a claimant's normal income
>>> of a pittance). That is the reality of food banks.
>
>> That is absolutely no different in principle from having been robbed
>> ("mugged") or defrauded.
>> That it happens in some cases is not doubted. But it certainly has NOT
>> happened to everyone whom you describe as "[having] to queue at food
>> banks".
> Since I've been involved in the administration of such a scheme, I can
> assure you that it is indeed the case.
otherwise failed to satisfy the conditions for claiming benefit?
Even if that were true (it plainly cannot be), whose fault would that be?
Yours?
Mine?
abelard's?
>>> In maybe one in ten cases, there is something doubtful about the food
>>> bank user's immediate need for food (which is the crisis that food
>>> banks are supposed to alleviate),
>
>> In fact, given that everyone can get more than enough money for food
>> (from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), your proportions are at
>> least the wrong way round.
>
> No JN, that's the point, people find themselves in situations where
> they are not getting, and *cannot* get, enough money for food that is
> needed immediately. You seem to have a neurological problem that
> prevents you from digesting exactly what is being said.
others to.
The word "digest" is not a synonym for "believe". You are telling
patently non-credible porkies for your own sinister
politically-motivated reasons: that's the problem.
>> It would only be (something less than) your one in ten who was genuinely
>> in need of food and - crucially - unable to provide it out of their own
>> resources.
> That's not my experience. My experience is as I said, that maybe one
> in ten offered food parcels are merely poor, but not thought to be
> immediately facing hunger (or facing any other sudden crisis which
> they claim to be facing). The majority of crises can be independently
> verified, and often are verified in the normal course of providing
> other kinds of assistance to such people - as I say, the vast majority
> involve either the DWP, the taxman, or debt collection firms.
requirements for claiming benefit, they aren't going to get any. That
strikes me as a good reason to *comply*. Doesn't it strike you the same way?
I can even accept that debt collection issues might cause particular
(but not continuous) problems from time to time.
But "the taxman"?
What ARE you on about? Emergency code tax collection? Repayment of
unpaid tax from earlier periods? What?
>> The other 90%+ are (quite rationally, even if that is not a word they
>> themselves would use) choosing to get a handout in order to free up some
>> of their income for other purposes.
>
> No, as I've explained this proportion is not correct. I would imagine
> that all food bank users are essentially behaving "rationally" in
> seeking to receive food - is charity something that can only be
> allowed to the irrational?
>>> but what is never in question is
>>> that the people who use food banks are extremely poor.
>
>> Given that no-one in the UK needs to "use" a foodbank unless in a very
>> specific and temporary situation (because everyone can get more than
>> enough money for food, from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), what
>> does "extremely poor" mean?
> For example, "extremely poor" is the need to use a foodbank in any
> conceivable situation, however specific and temporary.
anyone who needs to use a food bank is extremely poor".
Have you ever come across the concept of the "circular argument"?
>> There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
>> insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
>> week in benefits.
> Actually, I seem to remember my position, in summary, was that you
> were talking out of your arse, and that he was not receiving £1,400!
to the DWP website and benefit rates (which have increased since then).
It ought to have shocked you, but it didn't. Your only reaction was to
stick your fingers in your ears and sing as loudly as you could.
> I also pointed out several times that he and his various wives and
> mistresses, were actually often working, and Philpott was an ex-
> British Army soldier!
You don't think all ex-soldiers get £1400 a week, do you?
>>> Like the
>>> 'beggar on £50k' story the other day, some of the very poorest do not
>>> remain impotent and passive in the receipt of charity, but actively
>>> appropriate for themselves as much of the available charity as
>>> possible. But, like the 'beggar on £50k', what nobody doubts is that
>>> without charitable assistance, the underlying structure of our society
>>> means that these people would be extremely poor indeed.
>
>> Lots of people doubt it, and with good reason: it's patent nonsense.
>
> I'm afraid it isn't.
Assuming that they claim, qualify for and receive their social security
entitlement (where necessary), there is no-one in the UK who cannot
afford to eat. It therefore follows that there is no-one in the UK who
needs to use a food bank on the basis that they cannot afford food
(because there is, in effect, no-one in the UK who cannot afford to eat,
subject to the obvious risk of temporary specific loss, damage, theft, etc).
Anyone using food-banks is doing so on quite rational grounds - it frees
up some of their income, which would otherwise be required for the
purchase of food, for other purposes, perhaps including purposes for
which social security does not even try to make provision.
Ste
Jun 9, 2013, 2:58:43 PM6/9/13
to
On Jun 9, 12:50 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 11:40, Ste wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 08/06/2013 10:00, Ste wrote:
> >>> On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >>>> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
> >>> The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
>
> >> No-one in the UK does unless in a very specific and temporary situation
> >> (see below).
>
> > I would not have to queue at a food bank under any foreseeable
> > circumstances. You don't seem to comprehend the necessary level of
> > deprivation, not just for the individual but for the whole community
> > in which they live.
>
> You *don't* have to queue at a food bank, any more than I do. *If*
> either of us "needed" to queue at a food-bank, that would have nothing
> to do with, and would not be remotely caused by, the state of affluence
> or otherwise of anyone who lives in the community or communities where
> we reside.
Of course it does, because it implies that all informal avenues for
> On 09/06/2013 11:40, Ste wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 08/06/2013 10:00, Ste wrote:
> >>> On Jun 7, 8:57 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >>>> why buy food when you can buy drink and get food handout as well
> >>> The fact remains, I don't have to queue at food banks to have both.
>
> >> No-one in the UK does unless in a very specific and temporary situation
> >> (see below).
>
> > I would not have to queue at a food bank under any foreseeable
> > circumstances. You don't seem to comprehend the necessary level of
> > deprivation, not just for the individual but for the whole community
> > in which they live.
>
> You *don't* have to queue at a food bank, any more than I do. *If*
> either of us "needed" to queue at a food-bank, that would have nothing
> to do with, and would not be remotely caused by, the state of affluence
> or otherwise of anyone who lives in the community or communities where
> we reside.
seeking food are exhausted (or don't exist). If you did experience
some sort of disaster that left you penniless and hungry, in the first
instance you wouldn't go searching for a food bank - you'd turn to
your friends, your neighbours, your kids, your parents.
> >>> Evidently you accept that some people are so poor that they must. In
> >>> my experience, the two biggest factors creating need for food banks,
> >>> are debt collectors who harass or threaten people into handing over
> >>> more money than they can afford (or who seize it directly from their
> >>> bank accounts), and benefit 'problems' (including sanctions, delays,
> >>> and other administrative interruptions to a claimant's normal income
> >>> of a pittance). That is the reality of food banks.
>
> >> That is absolutely no different in principle from having been robbed
> >> ("mugged") or defrauded.
> >> That it happens in some cases is not doubted. But it certainly has NOT
> >> happened to everyone whom you describe as "[having] to queue at food
> >> banks".
> > Since I've been involved in the administration of such a scheme, I can
> > assure you that it is indeed the case.
>
> What, every one of them has been "hounded" by debt-collectors or has
> otherwise failed to satisfy the conditions for claiming benefit?
significant profile is that of the working poor or "self-employed",
who are sometimes suddenly hit with large bills, fines, or sudden
shortage of work, or a partner suddenly walks out leaving the rent to
be paid, etc. And with debt, sometimes it's not even that person's
debt, but that of a partner or an adult child. What sort of
circumstances do you *think* tends to leave people without food?
> Even if that were true (it plainly cannot be),
> whose fault would that be?
>
> Yours?
>
> Mine?
>
> abelard's?
benefits system, and generally in the unequal distribution of wealth
in our society.
> >>> In maybe one in ten cases, there is something doubtful about the food
> >>> bank user's immediate need for food (which is the crisis that food
> >>> banks are supposed to alleviate),
>
> >> In fact, given that everyone can get more than enough money for food
> >> (from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), your proportions are at
> >> least the wrong way round.
>
> > No JN, that's the point, people find themselves in situations where
> > they are not getting, and *cannot* get, enough money for food that is
> > needed immediately. You seem to have a neurological problem that
> > prevents you from digesting exactly what is being said.
>
> You seem either to have difficulty with English or to (vainly) expect
> others to.
>
> The word "digest" is not a synonym for "believe". You are telling
> patently non-credible porkies for your own sinister
> politically-motivated reasons: that's the problem.
isn't also being said by priests (those well-known revolutionaries)
and charity workers on the television. You call me a liar when I
describe my *own* experience of people in these situations. Do you
really find it inconceivable that, for example, a debt collector turns
up to a woman's door, she's not a hard case, she's on benefits for the
first time in her life, and the debt collector says in one way or
another "this debt must be paid or else", and so she gathers what she
can to pay a debt belonging to the partner who left last year, or the
son who is out of work, and a couple of days later finds that the
cupboards are empty and she's hungry. Do you really find that story
incredible? That no debt collector would ever ask for money that can't
be afforded? That no person would ever pay money that they cannot
afford? That no person would ever pay a debt belonging to another
person, because they don't know the law, or they aren't confident of
the law's ability to protect them, or simply because some big bloke on
the doorstep says "I don't believe you" and they're scared of
essentially having their homes legally burglarised by a bailiff?
If you find this sort of story, this sort of thinking, to be
inconceivable, then you're really quite out of touch with reality and
with the profile of people you judge. A Britain in which no poor
person need ever go hungry, is a Britain that exists only in your own
imagination, evidently shielded from the reality by a dense bony
enclosure and sheltered circumstances.
> >> It would only be (something less than) your one in ten who was genuinely
> >> in need of food and - crucially - unable to provide it out of their own
> >> resources.
> > That's not my experience. My experience is as I said, that maybe one
> > in ten offered food parcels are merely poor, but not thought to be
> > immediately facing hunger (or facing any other sudden crisis which
> > they claim to be facing). The majority of crises can be independently
> > verified, and often are verified in the normal course of providing
> > other kinds of assistance to such people - as I say, the vast majority
> > involve either the DWP, the taxman, or debt collection firms.
>
> I can quite understand that if someone fails to comply with the
> requirements for claiming benefit, they aren't going to get any. That
> strikes me as a good reason to *comply*. Doesn't it strike you the same way?
hunger. That's why in the Victorian period people would rather wander
and beg on the streets, not because it was a genuinely pleasant
alternative, but because the conditions for relief, the acceptance of
the workhouse regime, were *specifically designed* to be harsh and
punishing, to buffet the psyche of the poorest and most vulnerable who
in the imagination of the ruling class were merely shirkers and
spongers who couldn't be motivated to work for the miserable pay and
conditions available in an unfettered free market (and the early 19th
century was a particularly brutal time for workers in free markets).
The benefits system we now have, is about as close as you can go to
the workhouse without actual institutionalisation - which is probably
perceived as too costly as well as being a totem of barbaric treatment
in the popular imagination. We have pointless makework in the form of
jobseeking, we have essentially unpaid labour in the form of
"training" to do the most rudimentary roles, we have a bureaucracy
designed to be frustrating and arbitrary (as evidenced by the
retrospective legislation recently introduced), and jobseekers are
terrorised by the threat of hunger for non-compliance - since
evidently there is no other appreciable sanction that can be imposed
on people who already have barely anything.
> I can even accept that debt collection issues might cause particular
> (but not continuous) problems from time to time.
because by time it's happened once and they're at a food bank, other
people are in a position to help them. In many cases, one can't even
really blame the debt collectors as being rogues, at least within the
structure they are expected to operate. If you're going to the doors
of the very poorest and asking for hundreds of pounds, and to expect
to extract this by the use of fear and menaces, and if this much is
accepted to be legitimate and necessary, then inevitably a proportion
of those who are shaken down are going to end up at the doors of food
banks.
> But "the taxman"?
>
> What ARE you on about? Emergency code tax collection? Repayment of
> unpaid tax from earlier periods? What?
by the taxman. I don't recall one that actually involved a food crisis
(because tax credits don't tend to be the first line of income), but
since we were taking about crisis generally and its origins, I thought
it relevant to mention. Clearly, for a mother with children to lose
the large part of their weekly income (especially at an already low
level) is a financial crisis, even if they manage to avoid a food
crisis by skipping the rent payment or something like that.
> >>> but what is never in question is
> >>> that the people who use food banks are extremely poor.
>
> >> Given that no-one in the UK needs to "use" a foodbank unless in a very
> >> specific and temporary situation (because everyone can get more than
> >> enough money for food, from taxpayer-funded sources if necessary), what
> >> does "extremely poor" mean?
> > For example, "extremely poor" is the need to use a foodbank in any
> > conceivable situation, however specific and temporary.
>
> I see: "Anyone who needs to use a food bank is extremely poor because
> anyone who needs to use a food bank is extremely poor".
>
> Have you ever come across the concept of the "circular argument"?
two are self-evidently connected. You asked me how I might define
"extremely poor". I suggest that we define it here as being those who
need to use food banks to relieve imminent hunger. The real issue is
that you still maintain there is no need for food banks - this is
because you live in a dreamworld.
> >> There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
> >> insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
> >> week in benefits.
> > Actually, I seem to remember my position, in summary, was that you
> > were talking out of your arse, and that he was not receiving £1,400!
>
> He was receiving that amount. It was proven and illustrated by reference
> to the DWP website and benefit rates (which have increased since then).
correctly, you made a threefold mistake just in relation to the number
of dependent children, firstly that you accounted for more children
than he had ever had, secondly that you failed to account for
"children" who were long since grown up, and thirdly that you failed
to acknowledge that he was not always the parent with custody. He'd
been given substantial jail time for brutally beating at least one of
his ex-partners who was the mother of some of his children.
Then, when I made a more realistic estimate of his income, I
established that when divided amongst the *three* adults of the
household and several children, the actual amounts available were
pretty much what you'd expect of an extremely *poor* family living on
the bare minimum. It's all very well him shaving a fiver or a tenner a
week off each child for himself, but that still does not a rich man
make, and it comes at the price of managing that number of children.
> It ought to have shocked you, but it didn't. Your only reaction was to
> stick your fingers in your ears and sing as loudly as you could.
problem with work, with worklessness, with low wages, and with unequal
economic distribution, but Philpott is infamous for reasons that are
essentially unconnected, and there is nothing notable about their
economic circumstances except a level of poverty and hopelessness that
is not untypical. He was a reckless and criminally violent man when he
was a paid solider, and he was a reckless and criminally violent man
20 years later when he was a poor bum with a dysfunctional family.
> > I also pointed out several times that he and his various wives and
> > mistresses, were actually often working, and Philpott was an ex-
> > British Army soldier!
>
> The first £50 might have been an Army pension. Big deal.
>
> You don't think all ex-soldiers get £1400 a week, do you?
> >>> Like the
> >>> 'beggar on £50k' story the other day, some of the very poorest do not
> >>> remain impotent and passive in the receipt of charity, but actively
> >>> appropriate for themselves as much of the available charity as
> >>> possible. But, like the 'beggar on £50k', what nobody doubts is that
> >>> without charitable assistance, the underlying structure of our society
> >>> means that these people would be extremely poor indeed.
>
> >> Lots of people doubt it, and with good reason: it's patent nonsense.
>
> > I'm afraid it isn't.
>
> Repeating your patent fabrications does not make them true.
>
> Assuming that they claim, qualify for and receive their social security
> entitlement (where necessary), there is no-one in the UK who cannot
> afford to eat.
the major reasons for food crises is the essentially normal
administration of it in cases where it is designed to create food
crises or a high risk of them. By saying that, in all cases *other
than* those which are responsible for food crises, people have enough
to eat, that's a statement that I'm willing to accept, but it is a
tautology which does not deal with the cases which *are* responsible
for food crises, where people do *not* have enough to eat.
> It therefore follows that there is no-one in the UK who
> needs to use a food bank on the basis that they cannot afford food
> (because there is, in effect, no-one in the UK who cannot afford to eat,
> subject to the obvious risk of temporary specific loss, damage, theft, etc).
not just the cases that do not lead to food crises.
> Anyone using food-banks is doing so on quite rational grounds - it frees
> up some of their income, which would otherwise be required for the
> purchase of food, for other purposes, perhaps including purposes for
> which social security does not even try to make provision.
ten cases. The remaining nine in ten cases, involve imminent hunger
that is relieved by a food parcel.
abelard
Jun 9, 2013, 4:37:13 PM6/9/13
to
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 03:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
>> insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
>> week in benefits.
>
>Actually, I seem to remember my position, in summary, was that you
>were talking out of your arse, and that he was not receiving £1,400! I
>also pointed out several times that he and his various wives and
>mistresses, were actually often working, and Philpott was an ex-
>British Army soldier!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303881/Mick-Philpott-got-100k-benefits-wages-wife-Mairead-lover-Lisa-Willis-paid-HIS-account.html#ixzz2VklDKsxY
BENEFITS BREAKDOWN: HOW MICK PHILPOTT RAKED IN NEARLY £68,000
Child benefit
Philpott: £20.30 a week for eldest son, £13.40 for the other ten.
Yearly total: £8,023.60p
Working tax credits
Mairead: Up to £20,560 a year for her six children
Lisa Willis: Up to £17,870 for her five children
Estimated earnings from their cleaning jobs: £14,000
Yearly total: £38,430
Housing benefit
Philpott: £150 a week
Yearly total: £7,800
ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL: £68,000
This is the approximate take-home pay of someone earning £100,000
are you claiming that such a menagerie cannot live adequately on
such largesse?
wrote:
>On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
>> insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
>> week in benefits.
>
>Actually, I seem to remember my position, in summary, was that you
>were talking out of your arse, and that he was not receiving £1,400! I
>also pointed out several times that he and his various wives and
>mistresses, were actually often working, and Philpott was an ex-
>British Army soldier!
BENEFITS BREAKDOWN: HOW MICK PHILPOTT RAKED IN NEARLY £68,000
Child benefit
Philpott: £20.30 a week for eldest son, £13.40 for the other ten.
Yearly total: £8,023.60p
Working tax credits
Mairead: Up to £20,560 a year for her six children
Lisa Willis: Up to £17,870 for her five children
Estimated earnings from their cleaning jobs: £14,000
Yearly total: £38,430
Housing benefit
Philpott: £150 a week
Yearly total: £7,800
ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL: £68,000
This is the approximate take-home pay of someone earning £100,000
are you claiming that such a menagerie cannot live adequately on
such largesse?
Ste
Jun 9, 2013, 6:48:21 PM6/9/13
to
On Jun 9, 9:37 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 03:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
children each and that parent working full-time, can live on about
£20kpa each net. A single person on that income you'd say they're not
short of a bob, but with four children to feed and a full-time job you
wouldn't say they're living the life of riley.
I mean really, is £20k per adult and four children "largesse", these
days? It's all very well the Mail screaming that it's equivalent to a
before-tax income of £100k for one person, but we're not dealing with
one person - we're dealing with three adults (two of whom are working)
and 11 children. That is, £100k to cater not for one person, but for
fourteen people!
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 03:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
> >> insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
> >> week in benefits.
>
> >Actually, I seem to remember my position, in summary, was that you
> >were talking out of your arse, and that he was not receiving £1,400! I
> >also pointed out several times that he and his various wives and
> >mistresses, were actually often working, and Philpott was an ex-
> >British Army soldier!
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303881/Mick-Philpott-got-100...
>
> >On Jun 8, 12:37 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> There were people on here - you might have been one of them - who
> >> insisted that that Philpott creature was "poor", despite his £1400 a
> >> week in benefits.
>
> >Actually, I seem to remember my position, in summary, was that you
> >were talking out of your arse, and that he was not receiving £1,400! I
> >also pointed out several times that he and his various wives and
> >mistresses, were actually often working, and Philpott was an ex-
> >British Army soldier!
>
> BENEFITS BREAKDOWN: HOW MICK PHILPOTT RAKED IN NEARLY £68,000
>
> Child benefit
>
> Philpott: £20.30 a week for eldest son, £13.40 for the other ten.
> Yearly total: £8,023.60p
>
> Working tax credits
>
> Mairead: Up to £20,560 a year for her six children
>
> Lisa Willis: Up to £17,870 for her five children
>
> Estimated earnings from their cleaning jobs: £14,000
>
> Yearly total: £38,430
>
> Housing benefit
>
> Philpott: £150 a week
>
> Yearly total: £7,800
>
> ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL: £68,000
>
> This is the approximate take-home pay of someone earning £100,000
>
> are you claiming that such a menagerie cannot live adequately on
> such largesse?
No more or less so than three single-parent families with four
>
> Child benefit
>
> Philpott: £20.30 a week for eldest son, £13.40 for the other ten.
> Yearly total: £8,023.60p
>
> Working tax credits
>
> Mairead: Up to £20,560 a year for her six children
>
> Lisa Willis: Up to £17,870 for her five children
>
> Estimated earnings from their cleaning jobs: £14,000
>
> Yearly total: £38,430
>
> Housing benefit
>
> Philpott: £150 a week
>
> Yearly total: £7,800
>
> ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL: £68,000
>
> This is the approximate take-home pay of someone earning £100,000
>
> are you claiming that such a menagerie cannot live adequately on
> such largesse?
children each and that parent working full-time, can live on about
£20kpa each net. A single person on that income you'd say they're not
short of a bob, but with four children to feed and a full-time job you
wouldn't say they're living the life of riley.
I mean really, is £20k per adult and four children "largesse", these
days? It's all very well the Mail screaming that it's equivalent to a
before-tax income of £100k for one person, but we're not dealing with
one person - we're dealing with three adults (two of whom are working)
and 11 children. That is, £100k to cater not for one person, but for
fourteen people!
abelard
Jun 9, 2013, 7:06:02 PM6/9/13
to
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
this is not 3 units...it is one unit...
there are economies of scale...
your usual marxist games, you are trying to dodge and befog...
>I mean really, is £20k per adult and four children "largesse", these
>days? It's all very well the Mail screaming that it's equivalent to a
>before-tax income of £100k for one person, but we're not dealing with
>one person - we're dealing with three adults (two of whom are working)
>and 11 children. That is, £100k to cater not for one person, but for
>fourteen people!
i see no need to go beyond the facts
wrote:
there are economies of scale...
your usual marxist games, you are trying to dodge and befog...
>I mean really, is £20k per adult and four children "largesse", these
>days? It's all very well the Mail screaming that it's equivalent to a
>before-tax income of £100k for one person, but we're not dealing with
>one person - we're dealing with three adults (two of whom are working)
>and 11 children. That is, £100k to cater not for one person, but for
>fourteen people!
JNugent
Jun 9, 2013, 8:54:12 PM6/9/13
to
"He wasn't getting it", or
"OK, he was getting it, but £100,000 a year equivalent is peanuts these
days"?
>
Georgie Boy
Jun 9, 2013, 11:37:14 PM6/9/13
to
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:29:57 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
>coordination, and equality.
>
>And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
>coordination, and equality.
>
>And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>
>But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
>owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
>liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
>weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
>live and work in another part of the world.
>
>I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
>so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
>low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction? I've
>owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
>liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
>weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
>live and work in another part of the world.
>
>I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
>so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
>got sympathy with the rich as long as they're "live and let live". But
>it seems for some money isn't enough, they want to dictate was you and I
>can and can't do.
>
>can and can't do.
>
>This suggests to me that what the right call a "free market economy"
>isn't anyhting of the kind- it's big bully writes the tune we dance to.
>And if Big Bully wants state help, then that's different to the dole or
>whatever, it's supporting business. I'd guess that a lot of these
>trumpteers of "free enterprise" would actually go to the wall if
>subjected to a real free market- as opposed to a fixed one that their
>government friends set up for their benefit.
It is time for all of us non-political people to boycott elections.
>isn't anyhting of the kind- it's big bully writes the tune we dance to.
>And if Big Bully wants state help, then that's different to the dole or
>whatever, it's supporting business. I'd guess that a lot of these
>trumpteers of "free enterprise" would actually go to the wall if
>subjected to a real free market- as opposed to a fixed one that their
>government friends set up for their benefit.
Let the politicos elect their own but stop them claiming they do
anythng in our name.
Vidcapper
Jun 10, 2013, 1:49:14 AM6/10/13
to
On 10/06/2013 04:37, Georgie Boy wrote:
>
> It is time for all of us non-political people to boycott elections.
> Let the politicos elect their own but stop them claiming they do
> anythng in our name.
>
Problem is, if they believe that no-one cares what they do, they'll get
>
> It is time for all of us non-political people to boycott elections.
> Let the politicos elect their own but stop them claiming they do
> anythng in our name.
>
progressively worse!
--
Regards,
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Ste
Jun 10, 2013, 3:02:44 AM6/10/13
to
On Jun 10, 12:06 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
I'm sure there are, but only to a modest extent.
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:48:21 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Ste
Jun 10, 2013, 3:08:09 AM6/10/13
to
unless you want to refer back to those and make a specific rebuttal.
It's sufficient this time to point out that the Mail is adding
together the incomes of three adults, including two workers and with
11 children between them, and pretending that Philpott was earning
this for himself - so, no, he "wasn't getting it".
abelard
Jun 10, 2013, 5:11:29 AM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
don't be daft...
3 washing machines...
3 rents...
3 baby sitters...
and several growing youths that can help around the place...
quite apart from bulk food buying...
you are not making any sort of a real world case....
as with all socialists you are attempting to get by on vague
emotional claims and a surfeit of adjectives, in place of
any serious analysis...
a menagerie like that can live quite well on more than well
over £1000 a week tax free...
and doubtless free schooling, medicine, uniforms, highways,
rubbish collections...and more
wrote:
3 washing machines...
3 rents...
3 baby sitters...
and several growing youths that can help around the place...
quite apart from bulk food buying...
you are not making any sort of a real world case....
as with all socialists you are attempting to get by on vague
emotional claims and a surfeit of adjectives, in place of
any serious analysis...
a menagerie like that can live quite well on more than well
over £1000 a week tax free...
and doubtless free schooling, medicine, uniforms, highways,
rubbish collections...and more
JNugent
Jun 10, 2013, 7:56:48 AM6/10/13
to
On 10/06/2013 08:08, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 10, 1:54 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2013 23:48, Ste wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 9:37 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 1:54 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2013 23:48, Ste wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 9:37 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
obviously elevated to the position of your patron saint) was earning
anything.
That's more or less the whole point.
Stand up for the majority, to whom £100,000 a year gross equivalent is a
pipe-dream, not for creatures like Philpott, who regarded that majority
as mugs.
Georgie Boy
Jun 10, 2013, 10:59:20 AM6/10/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:49:14 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 10/06/2013 04:37, Georgie Boy wrote:
>
>>
>> It is time for all of us non-political people to boycott elections.
>> Let the politicos elect their own but stop them claiming they do
>> anythng in our name.
>>
>
>Problem is, if they believe that no-one cares what they do, they'll get
>progressively worse!
Quite obviously they already do not care so why let them claim it is
being done in our name?
wrote:
>On 10/06/2013 04:37, Georgie Boy wrote:
>
>>
>> It is time for all of us non-political people to boycott elections.
>> Let the politicos elect their own but stop them claiming they do
>> anythng in our name.
>>
>
>Problem is, if they believe that no-one cares what they do, they'll get
>progressively worse!
being done in our name?
®i©ardo
Jun 11, 2013, 7:27:55 AM6/11/13
to
On 07/06/2013 08:01, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:56 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 5:29 pm, Andy Wainwright
>>
>> of course your aim is freedom and liberty for none...
>>> authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
>>> government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
particular election were pledged to the introduction of he NHS. But
then, history isn't one of your strong points, is it? You prefer the
Marxist Revisionist version.
>
>
>> meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
>> wealthy...
>
> Not in Britain they haven't. Wages are lower than they were 10 years
> ago. Jobs are more insecure. Pensions are being wiped out. Personal
> debt is higher than ever. Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
>> of envy and class war promoted your cult...
>
> You've got to be deluded to think that it isn't a class war.
>
--
Moving Things in Still Pictures!
> On Jun 6, 10:56 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 5:29 pm, Andy Wainwright
>>> <andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
>>>> coordination, and equality.
>>
>>>> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>>
>>> Freedom and liberty *for the rich*, of course.
>>>> OK, so we've got the left, talking about collective responsibility and
>>>> coordination, and equality.
>>
>>>> And we've got the right, talking about free enterprise and liberty.
>>
>>
>> of course your aim is freedom and liberty for none...
>>
>>>> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
>>>> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
>>>> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
>>>> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
>>>> live and work in another part of the world.
>>
>>>> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
>>>> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
>>>> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
>>
>>> Because they're hypocrites! They *aren't* small state. They are big
>>>> But what seems to amaze me is when you get the rich, multi-millionaire
>>>> owned media talking about statism and restrictions on the civil
>>>> liberties of ordinary people. Whether it's someone who wants to smoke
>>>> weed or snort coke rather than drink beer, or the huy who just wants to
>>>> live and work in another part of the world.
>>
>>>> I'm not a commie, been there done that, got the t-shirt etc. But why are
>>>> so many of the rich, whilst hypocritically talking about individualism,
>>>> low tax and free enterprise, so supportive of state restriction?
>>
>>> authoritarian state - what they truly want all the levers of the
>>> government pulled to reinforce their wealth and privilege.
>>
>> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
>> playing the same tune...
>> it was written in 1944...
>
> A year or so before they kicked out the Tory prime minister who won
> the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
> for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
>
Based on the plans of a Liberal Party member and ALL parties to that
>> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
>> playing the same tune...
>> it was written in 1944...
>
> A year or so before they kicked out the Tory prime minister who won
> the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
> for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
>
particular election were pledged to the introduction of he NHS. But
then, history isn't one of your strong points, is it? You prefer the
Marxist Revisionist version.
>
>
>> meanwhile the world's people have become immensely more
>> wealthy...
>
> Not in Britain they haven't. Wages are lower than they were 10 years
> ago. Jobs are more insecure. Pensions are being wiped out. Personal
> debt is higher than ever. Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
> but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
> is also the case across the developed world.
>
>
>
>> except of course in those backwaters that act on the delusions
> is also the case across the developed world.
>
>
>
>> of envy and class war promoted your cult...
>
> You've got to be deluded to think that it isn't a class war.
>
--
Moving Things in Still Pictures!
®i©ardo
Jun 11, 2013, 7:50:23 AM6/11/13
to
>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 00:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
>>>> playing the same tune...
>>>> it was written in 1944...
>>
>>> A year or so before they kicked out the Tory prime minister who won
>>> the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
>>> for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> i've spent much of the day reading a tract by another marxist
>>>> playing the same tune...
>>>> it was written in 1944...
>>
>>> A year or so before they kicked out the Tory prime minister who won
>>> the second world war, and voted in a (real) Labour government which
>>> for the first time gave people universal healthcare?
>>
>> indeed, there are always plentiful fools available for you to con...
>> then they once more wake up to the reality you produce...
>> and you're out for another decade or more
>>
>> the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
>>
>> meanwhile the nhs is continually in a mess of corruption and
>> inefficiency...
>> and then there is n.i.c.e....the shamelessly named death panels...
>
> Yes, we still hear about "public sector inefficiency" on a daily
> basis. Every instance where these public services have been turned
> over to the private sector, inefficiency has gone up, disasters have
> gone up, and costs have gone up. IT, railways, gas, electricity, you
> name it, a vista of calamity and blown budgets for the taxpayer and
> the ordinary consumer, whilst each and every year bosses walk away
> with bigger pocketfuls of cash - and paying only pennies in tax to
> boot. I think people are sick and tired of hearing about "public
> sector inefficiency", whilst private sector fat cats tear our schools,
> hospitals, and railways apart and charge us for the privilege.
>
I know that you're expert at it, but do, please, stop writing such
>> then they once more wake up to the reality you produce...
>> and you're out for another decade or more
>>
>> the beverage report was by a liberal and voted for by churchill...
>>
>> meanwhile the nhs is continually in a mess of corruption and
>> inefficiency...
>> and then there is n.i.c.e....the shamelessly named death panels...
>
> Yes, we still hear about "public sector inefficiency" on a daily
> basis. Every instance where these public services have been turned
> over to the private sector, inefficiency has gone up, disasters have
> gone up, and costs have gone up. IT, railways, gas, electricity, you
> name it, a vista of calamity and blown budgets for the taxpayer and
> the ordinary consumer, whilst each and every year bosses walk away
> with bigger pocketfuls of cash - and paying only pennies in tax to
> boot. I think people are sick and tired of hearing about "public
> sector inefficiency", whilst private sector fat cats tear our schools,
> hospitals, and railways apart and charge us for the privilege.
>
absolute bollocks!
The public sector is inherently inefficient and for every industry that
was taken out of the cold dead hands of the state the burden on those
who paid tax was dramatically reduced, if only by virtue of the FACT
that they were no longer subsidising incompetence and and wastage.
As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nhs-expenditure.aspx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
When it comes to schools it is the private rather than the state sector
that excels and when it comes to the railways the number of deaths has
reduced dramatically: UK rail deaths 1978 - 1994 = 132; 1995 - 2011 = 83.
As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
prices have risen on an international basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>
>>> Of course, this is the case for *workers*,
>>> but not for the rich, who are indeed immensely more wealthy. And this
>>> is also the case across the developed world.
>>
>> your envy is rank foolishness...a 'rich' man can eat no more
>> meals a day than a poor man....
>
> You tell that to people queueing at food banks.
>
The self-unemployed have much to answer for.
>> meals a day than a poor man....
>
> You tell that to people queueing at food banks.
>
Ste
Jun 11, 2013, 10:43:52 AM6/11/13
to
On Jun 10, 10:11 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Big wow.
> 3 rents...
But their housing benefit was reduced accordingly, and of course you
lose the benefit of space and privacy - which is exactly why most of
us don't choose to live like sardines.
> 3 baby sitters...
Who pays for babysitters on their sort of income?
> and several growing youths that can help around the place...
>
> quite apart from bulk food buying...
Unfortunately, Costco is membership-only.
> you are not making any sort of a real world case....
No, this is *your* problem.
> as with all socialists you are attempting to get by on vague
> emotional claims and a surfeit of adjectives, in place of
> any serious analysis...
Lol! I'm utterly incredulous...
> a menagerie like that can live quite well on more than well
> over £1000 a week tax free...
I thought that to live as a "menagerie", was the definition of living
badly. It's like saying that, if only you round up a street full of
above-average-earning families, put them into a cramped house together
(with a few caravans outside, so multiple women can service each man),
and pool their incomes, the total million pounds a year will mean 30
adults and 70 children in a ten-bedroom house, will all live "quite
well". To me, your acceptance of this sort of statement, is proof of
how far out of touch people like yourself are about living on
benefits. The only sorts of people who live "quite well" in these
sorts of circumstances, are the sorts of people who are so degenerate
that they aren't averse to burning their children to death.
> and doubtless free schooling, medicine, uniforms, highways,
> rubbish collections...and more
What are you on?
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
> 3 rents...
But their housing benefit was reduced accordingly, and of course you
lose the benefit of space and privacy - which is exactly why most of
us don't choose to live like sardines.
> 3 baby sitters...
Who pays for babysitters on their sort of income?
> and several growing youths that can help around the place...
>
> quite apart from bulk food buying...
> you are not making any sort of a real world case....
> as with all socialists you are attempting to get by on vague
> emotional claims and a surfeit of adjectives, in place of
> any serious analysis...
> a menagerie like that can live quite well on more than well
> over £1000 a week tax free...
badly. It's like saying that, if only you round up a street full of
above-average-earning families, put them into a cramped house together
(with a few caravans outside, so multiple women can service each man),
and pool their incomes, the total million pounds a year will mean 30
adults and 70 children in a ten-bedroom house, will all live "quite
well". To me, your acceptance of this sort of statement, is proof of
how far out of touch people like yourself are about living on
benefits. The only sorts of people who live "quite well" in these
sorts of circumstances, are the sorts of people who are so degenerate
that they aren't averse to burning their children to death.
> and doubtless free schooling, medicine, uniforms, highways,
> rubbish collections...and more
Ste
Jun 11, 2013, 10:49:15 AM6/11/13
to
Philpott! Incidentally, £100k for three working adults is hardly "pipe
dream" earnings, and I'll stand up for the majority by fighting their
corner against the bosses and fascist newspapers like the Mail, not by
maliciously pretending that the very poorest on benefits are living
the life of riley.
Ste
Jun 11, 2013, 10:53:08 AM6/11/13
to
bankrolled the fascists in the 30s in which dirt-poor Jews and other
scapegoats were blamed for hunger marches, inequality, and failing
capitalism, precisely so that they could forestall the reforms that
ultimately came about only after the war.
Ste
Jun 11, 2013, 11:12:36 AM6/11/13
to
> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
the live flesh and musculature of the public sector. That's why the
ECML, having escheated back to the government, is now making a tidy
profit for the taxpayer, whilst the bidding fiasco for the WCML cost
the taxpayer £100m, all because they'd sacked "inefficient" railway
auditors in the public sector.
This agenda is intentional of course. As long as people attribute
blame to the public sector instead of the "inefficiency" parrots, then
the rich can carry on seizing taxpayers assets for pennies in the
pound, and rolling back important public services.
> When it comes to schools it is the private rather than the state sector
> that excels and when it comes to the railways the number of deaths has
> reduced dramatically: UK rail deaths 1978 - 1994 = 132; 1995 - 2011 = 83.
any privatisation. There have also been some shocking accidents since
privatisation, directly attributable to poor maintenance, and overall
the taxpayer is now spending *more* subsidising the privatised
railways.
> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
> prices have risen on an international basis.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-and-liberalisation-some-international-experiences
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyandcapital/dagdeviren.pdf
Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
prices fixed.
JNugent
Jun 11, 2013, 11:43:14 AM6/11/13
to
You have outdone even yourself for looniness (and you certainly had
fearsome competition to overcome in the form of your own previous
pronouncements).
To say that your hero Philpott was "earning" his �100,000 a year (or
whatever the precise figure was) is a real calumny against those who
*do* earn their own livings. Philpott, for all that you clearly idolise
him, didn't earn a penny. He was an absolute drain on society and you
love him for that.
Further, for you to pretend that your hero was *not* living the life of
Riley on the equivalent of �100,000 a year handed gratis to him out of
the earnings of the real workers is a gross insult to workers. And let's
not forget, BTW, that Philpott was campaigning to be given even more of
the fruits of the labours of others. At least he'd have been able to
count on your support.
Of course, as we already knew, you aren't really interested in workers.
It's far easier to con drones into voting for your brand of looniness.
Workers (by which I mean those who earn their own living) are just a bit
too canny to fall for your nonsense.
abelard
Jun 11, 2013, 1:10:59 PM6/11/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
you are now flapping around like a stranded fish...
while remarkable, it is not interesting
wrote:
while remarkable, it is not interesting
Ste
Jun 11, 2013, 4:41:12 PM6/11/13
to
On Jun 11, 6:10 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
You shithouse. You can't even muster a real argument.
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:43:52 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>
Ste
Jun 11, 2013, 5:04:37 PM6/11/13
to
implies.
> To say that your hero Philpott was "earning" his £100,000 a year (or
> whatever the precise figure was) is a real calumny against those who
> *do* earn their own livings. Philpott, for all that you clearly idolise
> him, didn't earn a penny. He was an absolute drain on society and you
> love him for that.
benefits from your utterly mendacious estimates of his income or
characterisation of the lifestyle that benefits enable.
> Further, for you to pretend that your hero was *not* living the life of
> Riley on the equivalent of £100,000 a year handed gratis to him out of
> the earnings of the real workers is a gross insult to workers.
earnings, and of tax credits paid to working parents. You don't know
your arse from your elbow.
> And let's
> not forget, BTW, that Philpott was campaigning to be given even more of
> the fruits of the labours of others. At least he'd have been able to
> count on your support.
>
> Of course, as we already knew, you aren't really interested in workers.
> It's far easier to con drones into voting for your brand of looniness.
> Workers (by which I mean those who earn their own living) are just a bit
> too canny to fall for your nonsense.
arse?
Bill
Jun 11, 2013, 5:31:41 PM6/11/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
That took you long enough to work out...
wrote:
abelard
Jun 12, 2013, 5:57:45 AM6/12/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:31:41 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
i notice you also cannot make a coherent argument....
but at least you've found another dope to hide behind
wrote:
but at least you've found another dope to hide behind
JNugent
Jun 12, 2013, 11:37:53 AM6/12/13
to
On 11/06/2013 21:41, Ste wrote:
> abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> What are you on?
>
>> you are now flapping around like a stranded fish...
>> while remarkable, it is not interesting
>
> You shithouse. You can't even muster a real argument.
Well up to normal socialist standards.
JNugent
Jun 12, 2013, 11:39:28 AM6/12/13
to
You've still some way to go.
®i©ardo
Jun 13, 2013, 7:20:05 AM6/13/13
to
USSR, which is your preferred rôle model was banging up the Jews in the
gulags, strongly supported by The Daily Worker - which paper,
incidentally was totally against Britain fighting the Fascists when
Hitler and Stalin were bosom buddies.
Bill
Jun 13, 2013, 7:30:51 AM6/13/13
to
sides by that stage, were being massacred...
®i©ardo
Jun 13, 2013, 12:42:05 PM6/13/13
to
of your excessive bigotry and blindness.
>
>
>> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
>> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
>> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
>> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>>
>> http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>
> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
and killing and maiming more and more people.
That's why the
> ECML, having escheated back to the government, is now making a tidy
> profit for the taxpayer,
whilst the bidding fiasco for the WCML cost
> the taxpayer £100m, all because they'd sacked "inefficient" railway
> auditors in the public sector.
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21266501
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213163/West-Coast-Main-Line-Rail-bid-civil-servants-exchanged-derogatory-emails-Virgin-boss-Richard-Branson.html
They used the civil servants for the process who lived up to their usual
standards of efficiency. THAT is what cost us all a fortune - civil
service jobsworths!
> This agenda is intentional of course. As long as people attribute
> blame to the public sector instead of the "inefficiency" parrots, then
> the rich can carry on seizing taxpayers assets for pennies in the
> pound, and rolling back important public services.
>
you didn't have the rich - those who pay more tax than anyone else in
this country, you wouldn't have any "public services" at all, few of
which started out being owned by the state in any event.
>
>
>> When it comes to schools it is the private rather than the state sector
>> that excels and when it comes to the railways the number of deaths has
>> reduced dramatically: UK rail deaths 1978 - 1994 = 132; 1995 - 2011 = 83.
>
> There has been a similar story over time with road deaths - without
> any privatisation. There have also been some shocking accidents since
> privatisation, directly attributable to poor maintenance, and overall
> the taxpayer is now spending *more* subsidising the privatised
> railways.
>
nationalised!
>
>
>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
>> prices have risen on an international basis.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>
> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
>
> http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-and-liberalisation-some-international-experiences
>
> http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyandcapital/dagdeviren.pdf
>
> Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
> prices fixed.
>
I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
source of such goods was controlled by the government.
JNugent
Jun 13, 2013, 7:37:13 PM6/13/13
to
On 13/06/2013 17:42, ®i©ardo wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 12:50 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 12:50 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
>>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
>>> prices have risen on an international basis.
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
>> http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-and-liberalisation-some-international-experiences
>> http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyandcapital/dagdeviren.pdf
>> Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
>> prices fixed.
>
> Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>
> I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
> National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
> lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
> source of such goods was controlled by the government.
and cod liver oil were discontinued.
Seeing people wearing glasses which don't have standard NHS-issue pink
plastic-covered round lenses has him boiling.
Though thinking of the population being free to read whatever they like
instead of the Daily Worker* has him incandescent.
[* Yes, I know... but "Daily Worker" sounds so much better - as though
it was written for Orwell's "Boxer".]
Topaz
Jun 13, 2013, 9:20:31 PM6/13/13
to
>Hitler and Stalin were bosom buddies.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after Soviet foreign minister
Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop,
refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between
Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
A treaty of non-aggression does not mean they were allies. The USA
really was allies with the Soviet Union but your Jewish controlled
media doesn't instruct you to think about that.
The Germans made radio broadcasts to America from Berlin. This is
part of what they said:
"The world today is divided into two camps. On the one side
Bolshevism, and on the other the forces for civilization. Why is
America on the wrong side?
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."
"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponents against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."
When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://nationalvanguard.org/ http://heretical.com/
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Topaz
Jun 13, 2013, 9:21:29 PM6/13/13
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:30:51 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Interesting that both sides were busy blaming the Jews, who, on both
>sides by that stage, were being massacred...
The Holocaust Cowing and Milking of Nations By Alex Linder
'Holocaust': The Means by Which the Richest Group in the World
Contrives to Cow and Milk the Rest of the Us in the Guise of Victims
who are Persecuted and Due Eternal Restitution.
Reading through a thousand blog reactions to Duke v Blitzer on CNN, a
generalization crystallizes. People confuse being told something six
million times with knowing something. They are not the same. "It ain't
what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so." The
average man 'knows' the Holocaust exists because:
1) everybody uses the term;
2) he has seen photos of stacked bodies;
3) he has read Anne Frank's book;
4) authorities agree that questioning any of this is 'hate.'
In other words, the average man believes in the Holocaust for no
logical reason, but out of simple mammalian conformity.
'Holocaust' is a loaded, dishonest term. You can't debate with
undefined terms without making a joke of yourself, but the average man
does not realize this. It is the part of public school, reinforced by
mass media, to disable his thinking so that he's worse positioned to
defend himself because he can't understand how he is manipulated to
accept the illogical. Debate in the mass media of a democracy is
nothing but the shuffling of loaded terms.
'Holocaust' is no ordinary noun. Rather, it is a loaded gun leveled at
the head of the West and the rest. Give them their money and their
pride of place or get your head and reputation blown off. You will
notice that never, ever does debate in the captive media condescend to
deconstruct the Zionist Privilege embodied in and sanctified by the
designer label 'Holocaust.' Worship the Zionists and submit to their
demands - that is what the term Holocaust means.
A demand for special privilege protected by a shell of pseudo-history;
that is an objective description of the term. The heart of the
'Holocaust,' taking at face value the term's pretension to historical
designation, is the claim that six million Jews were murdered by Nazi
Germany, most of them by gassing. The evidence for the gassing is
never discussed. Photos of crematories and bodies stacked like cord
wood are shown. No context or explanation of the reason for showing
them is given. The connection is to be assumed. But never is any
ordinary evidence, let alone proof, of the gassing allegation
advanced. That Jews were gassed is treated as though it were already
proved and therefore unquestionable, save by the depraved. Thus, the
practical job of the media and the well intentioned everyman is to
smear and ostracize anybody who argues against settled truth. We all
know that Jews were gassed, and that those who say otherwise are
deniers driven by hate. But it ain't so just because "everybody knows"
it is.
We are told repeatedly that the 'Holocaust' is both the worst thing
that ever happened and the best documented thing in human history. We
are to take these assertions on authority, since no genuine debate is
allowed.
There are men who can prove the 'Holocaust' is a Big Lie. You can find
them in jail. Their imprisonment is scarcely mentioned in the mass
media. Their imprisonment goes unlamented by the mass columnists. To
discuss these men and their work would endanger the Propa-sphere the
media construct. They must disappear. But we know, mass media. And
we're not going away. We're getting louder and stronger. And there's
nothing you can do to stop us.
wrote:
>
>Interesting that both sides were busy blaming the Jews, who, on both
>sides by that stage, were being massacred...
'Holocaust': The Means by Which the Richest Group in the World
Contrives to Cow and Milk the Rest of the Us in the Guise of Victims
who are Persecuted and Due Eternal Restitution.
Reading through a thousand blog reactions to Duke v Blitzer on CNN, a
generalization crystallizes. People confuse being told something six
million times with knowing something. They are not the same. "It ain't
what you don't know, it's what you know that just ain't so." The
average man 'knows' the Holocaust exists because:
1) everybody uses the term;
2) he has seen photos of stacked bodies;
3) he has read Anne Frank's book;
4) authorities agree that questioning any of this is 'hate.'
In other words, the average man believes in the Holocaust for no
logical reason, but out of simple mammalian conformity.
'Holocaust' is a loaded, dishonest term. You can't debate with
undefined terms without making a joke of yourself, but the average man
does not realize this. It is the part of public school, reinforced by
mass media, to disable his thinking so that he's worse positioned to
defend himself because he can't understand how he is manipulated to
accept the illogical. Debate in the mass media of a democracy is
nothing but the shuffling of loaded terms.
'Holocaust' is no ordinary noun. Rather, it is a loaded gun leveled at
the head of the West and the rest. Give them their money and their
pride of place or get your head and reputation blown off. You will
notice that never, ever does debate in the captive media condescend to
deconstruct the Zionist Privilege embodied in and sanctified by the
designer label 'Holocaust.' Worship the Zionists and submit to their
demands - that is what the term Holocaust means.
A demand for special privilege protected by a shell of pseudo-history;
that is an objective description of the term. The heart of the
'Holocaust,' taking at face value the term's pretension to historical
designation, is the claim that six million Jews were murdered by Nazi
Germany, most of them by gassing. The evidence for the gassing is
never discussed. Photos of crematories and bodies stacked like cord
wood are shown. No context or explanation of the reason for showing
them is given. The connection is to be assumed. But never is any
ordinary evidence, let alone proof, of the gassing allegation
advanced. That Jews were gassed is treated as though it were already
proved and therefore unquestionable, save by the depraved. Thus, the
practical job of the media and the well intentioned everyman is to
smear and ostracize anybody who argues against settled truth. We all
know that Jews were gassed, and that those who say otherwise are
deniers driven by hate. But it ain't so just because "everybody knows"
it is.
We are told repeatedly that the 'Holocaust' is both the worst thing
that ever happened and the best documented thing in human history. We
are to take these assertions on authority, since no genuine debate is
allowed.
There are men who can prove the 'Holocaust' is a Big Lie. You can find
them in jail. Their imprisonment is scarcely mentioned in the mass
media. Their imprisonment goes unlamented by the mass columnists. To
discuss these men and their work would endanger the Propa-sphere the
media construct. They must disappear. But we know, mass media. And
we're not going away. We're getting louder and stronger. And there's
nothing you can do to stop us.
abelard
Jun 14, 2013, 4:22:21 AM6/14/13
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:20:31 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:20:05 +0100, 展奄rdo
your national socialist heroes...
something you won't find in your mein kampf or your
das kapital...
http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?esid=02d5f4da513f2f43d93292471c33a950&location=article&sublocation=&lang=3&refcode=0&categoryid=4&articleid=617&diaryid=0&boardpage=2&searchtype=0&searchstring=
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:20:05 +0100, 展奄rdo
><he...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>>Hitler and Stalin were bosom buddies.
>The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after Soviet foreign minister
>Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop,
>refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between
>Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
>
> A treaty of non-aggression does not mean they were allies.
in the real world, they were allies...and it didn't start with
>>Hitler and Stalin were bosom buddies.
>The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after Soviet foreign minister
>Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop,
>refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between
>Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
>
> A treaty of non-aggression does not mean they were allies.
your national socialist heroes...
something you won't find in your mein kampf or your
das kapital...
http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?esid=02d5f4da513f2f43d93292471c33a950&location=article&sublocation=&lang=3&refcode=0&categoryid=4&articleid=617&diaryid=0&boardpage=2&searchtype=0&searchstring=
®i©ardo
Jun 14, 2013, 10:37:53 AM6/14/13
to
On 08/06/2013 10:20, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
>> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
>> if the White man is more qualified.
>
> And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
> and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
> complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
> way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
>
>
>
>> America is founded on the idea
>> that the White man is to blame for everything bad.
>
> America was founded on the idea that only the White man counted at all!
>
Racist little bastard, aren't you, as well as your many other failings.
Have a read of this, though, as it'll cheer you up no end to find that
you were utterly spot on your utterly superb claim that inefficiency was
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10116391/NHS-chief-refutes-gagging-cover-up-claims.html
> On Jun 8, 3:08 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
>> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
>> if the White man is more qualified.
>
> And why shouldn't that happen? Whites have monopolised wealth, power,
> and the educational and cultural privilege it brings, and then
> complain that nobody accepts "qualifications" as being a legitimate
> way of rationing high-pay, high-status jobs?
>
>
>
>> America is founded on the idea
>> that the White man is to blame for everything bad.
>
> America was founded on the idea that only the White man counted at all!
>
Racist little bastard, aren't you, as well as your many other failings.
Have a read of this, though, as it'll cheer you up no end to find that
you were utterly spot on your utterly superb claim that inefficiency was
the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10118384/Teflon-civil-servants-who-never-feel-the-heat.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10116391/NHS-chief-refutes-gagging-cover-up-claims.html
®i©ardo
Jun 14, 2013, 10:46:49 AM6/14/13
to
On 14/06/2013 02:20, Topaz wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:20:05 +0100, 展奄rdo
That apart the pact was sufficiently strong for the more militant trade
unionised workers of the UK to attempt to disrupt things by strike
action during wartime.
"Until 1941 when the Soviet Union entered the war, communists in
Britain, having little commitment to the war effort, refused to be bound
by the national unity consensus and in particular the ban on strike
action. During the first few months of the war, there were over 900
strikes!" Despite this little was done about such strikes as Ernest
Bevin, was Minister of Labour and he wanted to keep in with his
Socialist buddies!
--
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:20:05 +0100, 展奄rdo
unionised workers of the UK to attempt to disrupt things by strike
action during wartime.
"Until 1941 when the Soviet Union entered the war, communists in
Britain, having little commitment to the war effort, refused to be bound
by the national unity consensus and in particular the ban on strike
action. During the first few months of the war, there were over 900
strikes!" Despite this little was done about such strikes as Ernest
Bevin, was Minister of Labour and he wanted to keep in with his
Socialist buddies!
--
JNugent
Jun 14, 2013, 12:23:28 PM6/14/13
to
On 14/06/2013 02:20, Topaz wrote:
> ®i©ardo <he...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>> Hitler and Stalin were bosom buddies.
> The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after Soviet foreign minister
> Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop,
> refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between
> Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
> A treaty of non-aggression does not mean they were allies.
But they were allies and they had an alliance within which they allied
>> Hitler and Stalin were bosom buddies.
> The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after Soviet foreign minister
> Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop,
> refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between
> Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
> A treaty of non-aggression does not mean they were allies.
themselves in their conspired invasion of Poland and the subsequent
carving-up of that country between them.
If that's not an alliance, and if they were not allies, what were they?
Cue desperate scrabbling around for a different word to describe the
socialist alliance between Germany and the USSR...
Topaz
Jun 14, 2013, 10:13:12 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:22:21 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:
>in the real world, they were allies...and it didn't start with
> your national socialist heroes...
>
>something you won't find in your mein kampf or your
> das kapital...
wrote:
>in the real world, they were allies...and it didn't start with
> your national socialist heroes...
>
>something you won't find in your mein kampf or your
> das kapital...
Topaz
Jun 14, 2013, 10:14:55 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:46:49 +0100, ®i©ardo
<he...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>
>That apart the pact was sufficiently strong for the more militant trade
>unionised workers of the UK to attempt to disrupt things by strike
>action during wartime.
>
>"Until 1941 when the Soviet Union entered the war, communists in
>Britain, having little commitment to the war effort, refused to be bound
>by the national unity consensus and in particular the ban on strike
>action. During the first few months of the war, there were over 900
>strikes!" Despite this little was done about such strikes as Ernest
>Bevin, was Minister of Labour and he wanted to keep in with his
>Socialist buddies!
<he...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>
>That apart the pact was sufficiently strong for the more militant trade
>unionised workers of the UK to attempt to disrupt things by strike
>action during wartime.
>
>"Until 1941 when the Soviet Union entered the war, communists in
>Britain, having little commitment to the war effort, refused to be bound
>by the national unity consensus and in particular the ban on strike
>action. During the first few months of the war, there were over 900
>strikes!" Despite this little was done about such strikes as Ernest
>Bevin, was Minister of Labour and he wanted to keep in with his
>Socialist buddies!
The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.
The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
Topaz
Jun 14, 2013, 10:20:34 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:23:28 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>But they were allies and they had an alliance within which they allied
>themselves in their conspired invasion of Poland and the subsequent
>carving-up of that country between them.
Hitler gave the following communication to the British Ambassador:
"Poland's actual provocations have become intolerable. It makes no
difference who is responsible. If the Polish government denies
responsibility, that only goes to show that it no longer itself
possesses any influence of its subordinate military authorities.
In the preceding night there have been a further twenty-one frontier
incidents; on the German side the greatest discipline has been
maintained. The Polish side has provoked all incidents. Furthermore,
commercial aircraft have been shot at. If the Polish Government stated
that it was not responsible, it showed it was no longer capable of
controlling its on people."
This communication was handed and verbally read out to Sir Neville
Chamberlain, British Ambassador, 1.30pm 25th August 1939
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and
reasonably well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in
bringing on the Second World War.
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain -- a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe.
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so.
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the
White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
another blood bath in Europe in order to make the world safe for
democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good -- that he broke the law for lofty
principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was
noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to
name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard.
And the argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It
implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best
interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a
kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
* * * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
>
>If that's not an alliance, and if they were not allies, what were they?
>
>Cue desperate scrabbling around for a different word to describe the
>socialist alliance between Germany and the USSR...
>
Here are some quotes from:
Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by
eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with
the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was
psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward
Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National
Socialist] Party.
I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich
and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.
the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the
East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut
their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in
promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial
egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded
it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries
aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of
the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a
soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and
sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in
the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to
help.
Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that
the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and
thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation
of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a
period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces
bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a
military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being
carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was
being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed
incapable of defense.
What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident,
enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the
Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether
it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on
the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or
others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it
was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly
alien outside world.
Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and
defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up
the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they
may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals,
nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and
complementary whole.
And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other
parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural
fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to
acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England
that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman
branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the
[British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly
unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered
Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not
get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed
race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in
artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood
mixture.
I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became
obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the
German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also
greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When
the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than
just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they
defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples
stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the
West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended
more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa,
they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same
way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire
continent.
And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply
rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they
participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support
or with streams of volunteers.
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the
Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of
Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our
frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored,
motorized and infantry divisions.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow
the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart.
Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was
a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers
now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had
known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they
do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to
avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were
to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become
unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger
not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if
possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the
outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure
about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the
extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank
the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the
strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may
thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds
of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more
than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion
against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.
If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend
this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over
the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns,
If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a
European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the
concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other
nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have
come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch,
Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of
the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in
the truest sense of the word.
And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a
man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the
fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above
all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.
When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up
much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.
You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].
You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There
is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for
no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live
in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and
Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In
geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very
important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting
link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of
the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the
Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups
[notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less
severe.
During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily
hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the
German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to
enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and
we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text.
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the
German-Polish minority question:
The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any
further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have
taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution
must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so
that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only
eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same
tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the
intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of
Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the
minority populations in the lost territories.
In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by
the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the
intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation,
secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which
will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if
not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority
populations with secure guarantees of their rights.
On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete
proposals:
1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on
the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of
its population.
2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for
itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This
territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north]
to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder,
Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then
westwards to Schoenlanke.
3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory.
All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were
born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the
plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived
in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before
that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled
from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which
is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent
of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is
recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish
port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary,
established by an international court of arbitration.
7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the
territory will go to Germany or to Poland.
9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that
it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the
extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.
13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms
against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its
part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make
protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit
these complaints to an international investigation commission, which
will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and
physical damage as well as other acts of terror.
This is the treaty proposal - as straight-forward and as generous as
has ever been presented by a government - that was made by the
National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.
The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in
any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it
possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard
such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against
the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture,
and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces? A look at
the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later
provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man
[President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all
of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any
possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former
Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his
government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal
the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible
for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man
[Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that,
in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?
With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following
should be said:
1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a
colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise
politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions
of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and
particularly the United States, has only benefited.
Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between
the American and German nations that could possibly involve the
existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The
forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a
reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of
government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its
naturally ordained sphere.
History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will
always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a
pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of
national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but
among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone
made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were
torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was
ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood
behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into
a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed
this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic
ruin.
After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American
president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up
hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came
to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to
power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine
the factors behind the current developments.
First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that
there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and
attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an
extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that
class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of
advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family,
and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of
immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt
experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow
[as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the
agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I
lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or
profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an
ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the
face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as
when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with
millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called
upper ten thousand.
After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial
speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is,
from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital
along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in
business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class,
Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same
period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of
my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its
entire history.
Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the
United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the
German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I
had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the
same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my
people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that
served the new American president was made up of members of the same
national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical
expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took
control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that
was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were
13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven
million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In
both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the
spreading economic depression could not be stopped.
From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German
Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in
making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political
theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement
in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years
under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able
to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task
should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15
people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If
economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the
result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the
complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the
economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was
eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further
disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects
appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are
members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in
disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany
took measures against financial speculation, it flourished
tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was
spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by
anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during
peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have
brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical
cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have
ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the
nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by
a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening
opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think
that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his
domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting
to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington,
which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the
danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and
that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign
policy.
The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old
Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the
instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim
[slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were
increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their
satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his influence to create
conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep
conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked
for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he
could use to create political entanglements with American economic
obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily
involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own
confused domestic economic policies.
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been
particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches,
including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in
Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American
public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of
quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of
this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President
Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then
called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for
consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only
by charges d'affaires.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to
sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he
hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same
time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of
peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals,
calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the
Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a
shocking insight.
This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a
message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take
every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in
American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe
Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal
European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the
United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these
problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself
with central European affairs than the German head of state has to
take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United
States.
Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of
international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of
non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments.
He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which
then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories
[Greenland and Iceland ].
But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and
her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is
at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of
deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at
it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms
embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to
Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for
economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to
effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small
group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only
political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had
taken from Warsaw.
This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to
French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American
government would double its aid to France, on the condition that
France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special
emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the
American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by
conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories
that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now
and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about
whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border
in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the
systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about
peace while at the same time he incites to war.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the
billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be
recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack
America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in
order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in
reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca
on an American cruiser.
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war,
such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air
force and the training of British air force personnel in the United
States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States
and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a
joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the
stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as
if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly
cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers,
who really deserve pity. He moved still closer to war in September
1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the
British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British
possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will
determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against
socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the
British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a
role.
After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries
he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941].
As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease
military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in
America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that
Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued
boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa]
that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger
liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had
to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an
effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27,
1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser
Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La
Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of
foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to
international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue
the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they
finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy
hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely
through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
East.
In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by
the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were
treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in
violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so
forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to
the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian
authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.
On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all
aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his
clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade
after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier,
President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very
inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an
uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.
In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and
Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants
as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international
law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. Starting in mid-April [1941]
US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic,
reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt
delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time,
British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May
12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in
the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop
transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9
came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of
President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland
with depth charges.
On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in
violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying
pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the
shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German
Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn
[national railway] office.
On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from
Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally
force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize
the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At
the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July
10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was
under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US
destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British
airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later,
a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a
British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last
personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all
Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols
attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On
October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the
British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on
November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and
imprisoned its crew.
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude
statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he
calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did
not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in
America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr.
Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].
We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated
against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The
same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to
war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations.
He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while
at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war.
And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that
his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth
and violations of law are unparalleled in history.
I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance
that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this
in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should
not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941].
After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government
finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All
of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people
around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.
We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that
believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we
have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have
gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of
German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international
Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the
President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that
only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.
And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and
their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another.
The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of
the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been
trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present
leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this
historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being
determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store
for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the
past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National
Socialist Germany of today.
When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day
build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than
incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward
countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed
people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to
keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As
far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either
from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr.
Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to
insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts
conspire together to prevent it.
Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this
long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and
thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way.
At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and
seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports
returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly
informed of the following:
President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an
unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States
and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and
Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence.
For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of
America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in
the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of
the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has
steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German
and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary
deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The
increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have
reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete
violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack,
fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have
even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal
manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and
Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to
imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany
and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was
made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no
effort to deny it.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt,
Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the
expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United
States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27,
1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally
forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the
defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our
nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement,
which was signed today in Berlin:
Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that
has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain
with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.
Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an
armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or
Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.
Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely
together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of
bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact
concluded by them on September 27, 1940.
Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have
clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end.
We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the
Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with
Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same
community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany,
and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to
annihilate our enemies.
When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead
the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of
you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle
really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking
of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so
miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it
possible.
Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than
twenty years.
When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every
sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant
and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past
generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the
German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the
duty that is ours.
The government of the United States of America, having violated in the
most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having
continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany
ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British
declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally
resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America
publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force
to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27,
1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.
Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically
attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus,
American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the
Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan.
The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that
the American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under
order of their government and contrary to international law, have
treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy
ships.
The German government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States of America
during every period of the present war, the government of the United
States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally
proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby
virtually created a state of war.
The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic
relations with the United States of America and declares that under
these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too,
as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.
wrote:
>But they were allies and they had an alliance within which they allied
>themselves in their conspired invasion of Poland and the subsequent
>carving-up of that country between them.
"Poland's actual provocations have become intolerable. It makes no
difference who is responsible. If the Polish government denies
responsibility, that only goes to show that it no longer itself
possesses any influence of its subordinate military authorities.
In the preceding night there have been a further twenty-one frontier
incidents; on the German side the greatest discipline has been
maintained. The Polish side has provoked all incidents. Furthermore,
commercial aircraft have been shot at. If the Polish Government stated
that it was not responsible, it showed it was no longer capable of
controlling its on people."
This communication was handed and verbally read out to Sir Neville
Chamberlain, British Ambassador, 1.30pm 25th August 1939
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and
reasonably well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in
bringing on the Second World War.
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain -- a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe.
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so.
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the
White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
another blood bath in Europe in order to make the world safe for
democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good -- that he broke the law for lofty
principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was
noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to
name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard.
And the argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It
implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best
interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a
kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
* * * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
>
>If that's not an alliance, and if they were not allies, what were they?
>
>Cue desperate scrabbling around for a different word to describe the
>socialist alliance between Germany and the USSR...
>
Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by
eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with
the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was
psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward
Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National
Socialist] Party.
I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich
and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.
the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the
East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut
their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in
promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial
egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded
it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries
aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of
the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a
soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and
sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in
the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to
help.
Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that
the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and
thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation
of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a
period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces
bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a
military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being
carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was
being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed
incapable of defense.
What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident,
enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the
Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether
it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on
the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or
others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it
was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly
alien outside world.
Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and
defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up
the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they
may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals,
nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and
complementary whole.
And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other
parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural
fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to
acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England
that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman
branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the
[British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly
unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered
Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not
get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed
race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in
artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood
mixture.
I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became
obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the
German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also
greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When
the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than
just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they
defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples
stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the
West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended
more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa,
they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same
way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire
continent.
And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply
rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they
participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support
or with streams of volunteers.
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the
Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of
Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our
frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored,
motorized and infantry divisions.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow
the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart.
Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was
a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers
now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had
known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they
do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to
avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were
to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become
unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger
not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if
possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the
outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure
about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the
extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank
the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the
strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may
thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds
of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more
than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion
against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.
If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend
this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over
the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns,
If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a
European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the
concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other
nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have
come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch,
Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of
the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in
the truest sense of the word.
And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a
man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the
fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above
all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.
When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up
much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.
You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].
You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There
is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for
no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live
in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and
Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In
geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very
important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting
link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of
the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the
Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups
[notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less
severe.
During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily
hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the
German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to
enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and
we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text.
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the
German-Polish minority question:
The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any
further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have
taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution
must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so
that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only
eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same
tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the
intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of
Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the
minority populations in the lost territories.
In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by
the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the
intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation,
secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which
will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if
not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority
populations with secure guarantees of their rights.
On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete
proposals:
1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on
the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of
its population.
2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for
itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This
territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north]
to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder,
Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then
westwards to Schoenlanke.
3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory.
All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were
born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the
plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived
in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before
that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled
from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which
is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent
of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is
recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish
port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary,
established by an international court of arbitration.
7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the
territory will go to Germany or to Poland.
9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that
it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the
extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.
13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms
against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its
part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make
protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit
these complaints to an international investigation commission, which
will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and
physical damage as well as other acts of terror.
This is the treaty proposal - as straight-forward and as generous as
has ever been presented by a government - that was made by the
National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.
The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in
any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it
possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard
such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against
the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture,
and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces? A look at
the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later
provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man
[President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all
of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any
possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former
Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his
government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal
the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible
for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man
[Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that,
in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?
With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following
should be said:
1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a
colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise
politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions
of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and
particularly the United States, has only benefited.
Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between
the American and German nations that could possibly involve the
existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The
forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a
reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of
government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its
naturally ordained sphere.
History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will
always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a
pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of
national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but
among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone
made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were
torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was
ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood
behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into
a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed
this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic
ruin.
After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American
president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up
hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came
to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to
power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine
the factors behind the current developments.
First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that
there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and
attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an
extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that
class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of
advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family,
and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of
immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt
experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow
[as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the
agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I
lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or
profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an
ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the
face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as
when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with
millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called
upper ten thousand.
After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial
speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is,
from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital
along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in
business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class,
Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same
period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of
my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its
entire history.
Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the
United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the
German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I
had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the
same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my
people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that
served the new American president was made up of members of the same
national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical
expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took
control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that
was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were
13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven
million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In
both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the
spreading economic depression could not be stopped.
From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German
Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in
making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political
theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement
in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years
under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able
to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task
should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15
people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If
economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the
result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the
complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the
economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was
eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further
disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects
appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are
members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in
disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany
took measures against financial speculation, it flourished
tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was
spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by
anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during
peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have
brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical
cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have
ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the
nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by
a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening
opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think
that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his
domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting
to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington,
which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the
danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and
that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign
policy.
The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old
Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the
instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim
[slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were
increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their
satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his influence to create
conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep
conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked
for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he
could use to create political entanglements with American economic
obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily
involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own
confused domestic economic policies.
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been
particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches,
including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in
Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American
public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of
quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of
this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President
Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then
called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for
consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only
by charges d'affaires.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to
sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he
hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same
time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of
peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals,
calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the
Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a
shocking insight.
This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a
message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take
every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in
American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe
Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal
European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the
United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these
problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself
with central European affairs than the German head of state has to
take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United
States.
Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of
international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of
non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments.
He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which
then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories
[Greenland and Iceland ].
But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and
her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is
at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of
deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at
it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms
embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to
Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for
economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to
effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small
group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only
political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had
taken from Warsaw.
This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to
French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American
government would double its aid to France, on the condition that
France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special
emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the
American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by
conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories
that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now
and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about
whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border
in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the
systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about
peace while at the same time he incites to war.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the
billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be
recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack
America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in
order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in
reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca
on an American cruiser.
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war,
such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air
force and the training of British air force personnel in the United
States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States
and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a
joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the
stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as
if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly
cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers,
who really deserve pity. He moved still closer to war in September
1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the
British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British
possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will
determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against
socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the
British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a
role.
After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries
he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941].
As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease
military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in
America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that
Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued
boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa]
that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger
liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had
to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an
effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27,
1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser
Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La
Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of
foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to
international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue
the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they
finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy
hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely
through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
East.
In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by
the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were
treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in
violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so
forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to
the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian
authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.
On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all
aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his
clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade
after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier,
President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very
inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an
uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.
In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and
Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants
as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international
law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. Starting in mid-April [1941]
US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic,
reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt
delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time,
British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May
12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in
the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop
transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9
came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of
President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland
with depth charges.
On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in
violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying
pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the
shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German
Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn
[national railway] office.
On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from
Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally
force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize
the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At
the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July
10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was
under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US
destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British
airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later,
a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a
British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last
personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all
Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols
attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On
October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the
British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on
November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and
imprisoned its crew.
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude
statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he
calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did
not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in
America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr.
Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].
We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated
against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The
same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to
war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations.
He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while
at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war.
And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that
his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth
and violations of law are unparalleled in history.
I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance
that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this
in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should
not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941].
After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government
finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All
of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people
around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.
We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that
believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we
have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have
gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of
German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international
Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the
President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that
only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.
And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and
their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another.
The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of
the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been
trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present
leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this
historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being
determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store
for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the
past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National
Socialist Germany of today.
When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day
build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than
incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward
countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed
people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to
keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As
far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either
from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr.
Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to
insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts
conspire together to prevent it.
Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this
long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and
thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way.
At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and
seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports
returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly
informed of the following:
President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an
unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States
and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and
Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence.
For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of
America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in
the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of
the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has
steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German
and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary
deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The
increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have
reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete
violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack,
fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have
even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal
manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and
Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to
imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany
and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was
made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no
effort to deny it.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt,
Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the
expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United
States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27,
1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally
forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the
defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our
nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement,
which was signed today in Berlin:
Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that
has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain
with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.
Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an
armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or
Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.
Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely
together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of
bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact
concluded by them on September 27, 1940.
Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have
clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end.
We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the
Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with
Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same
community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany,
and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to
annihilate our enemies.
When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead
the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of
you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle
really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking
of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so
miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it
possible.
Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than
twenty years.
When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every
sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant
and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past
generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the
German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the
duty that is ours.
The government of the United States of America, having violated in the
most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having
continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany
ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British
declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally
resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America
publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force
to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27,
1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.
Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically
attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus,
American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the
Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan.
The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that
the American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under
order of their government and contrary to international law, have
treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy
ships.
The German government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States of America
during every period of the present war, the government of the United
States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally
proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby
virtually created a state of war.
The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic
relations with the United States of America and declares that under
these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too,
as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.
abelard
Jun 15, 2013, 5:54:37 AM6/15/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:13:12 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:22:21 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>
>>in the real world, they were allies...and it didn't start with
>> your national socialist heroes...
>>
>>something you won't find in your mein kampf or your
>> das kapital...
>
>Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
>"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
>the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
hitler was a socialist...so hitler was a liar...
like any socialist he would say whatever gave him profit at the
moment...
“National socialism derives from each of two camps the pure idea that
characterises it:
National resolution from bourgeois tradition;
vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.”
[January, 1934]
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Toland (Speech of May 1, 1927)
hitler's system of rule was copied from the russian marxists...
you know nothing
so as usual...rest binned unread
you are an ignorant time waster...
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:22:21 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>
>>in the real world, they were allies...and it didn't start with
>> your national socialist heroes...
>>
>>something you won't find in your mein kampf or your
>> das kapital...
>
>Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
>"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
>the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
like any socialist he would say whatever gave him profit at the
moment...
“National socialism derives from each of two camps the pure idea that
characterises it:
National resolution from bourgeois tradition;
vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.”
[January, 1934]
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Toland (Speech of May 1, 1927)
hitler's system of rule was copied from the russian marxists...
you know nothing
so as usual...rest binned unread
you are an ignorant time waster...
Ste
Jun 15, 2013, 6:38:20 AM6/15/13
to
On Jun 13, 5:42 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>
> >> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
> >> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
> >> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
> >> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>
> >>http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>
> > They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
> > the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>
> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
> and killing and maiming more and more people.
Where it has become "inefficient" it has been the result of earlier so-
> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>
> >> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
> >> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
> >> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
> >> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>
> >>http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>
> > They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
> > the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>
> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
> and killing and maiming more and more people.
called "efficiency savings". For example, you sack cleaners for
"efficiency", and then complain about the "inefficiency" of infections
and deaths that result. So you sack a few managers for "efficiency",
and then complain that the organisation is poorly managed. So you send
in a few private sector bosses, who go through the whole procedure
again - sack workers doing real work for reasons of "efficiency", and
then bring in more people who think like themselves when the
consequences finally show themselves.
> > That's why the
> > ECML, having escheated back to the government, is now making a tidy
> > profit for the taxpayer,
>
> ...at last...
>
> whilst the bidding fiasco for the WCML cost
>
> > the taxpayer £100m, all because they'd sacked "inefficient" railway
> > auditors in the public sector.
>
> Even the BBC, for all its left wing bent, disagrees with your fantasy there:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21266501
>
>
> They used the civil servants for the process who lived up to their usual
> standards of efficiency. THAT is what cost us all a fortune - civil
> service jobsworths!
All the BBC article says is that the franchising system is "too
> They used the civil servants for the process who lived up to their usual
> standards of efficiency. THAT is what cost us all a fortune - civil
> service jobsworths!
complex", and that there is "inadequate planning" and "poor
governance" in the public sector. More planning of course requires
more manpower and more stability of political agendas, and of course
it is difficult to manage the organisation effectively when the
obvious managerial action, internalisation of the railways into one
corporate body, is vetoed by pro-market politicians. By disallowing
that course of action, you obviously weed out effective, rational
managers with a competent understanding of the system, and instead
attract those with the habitual incoherency of thinking and approach
that allows them to tolerate the situation without becoming
demoralised.
> >> When it comes to schools it is the private rather than the state sector
> >> that excels and when it comes to the railways the number of deaths has
> >> reduced dramatically: UK rail deaths 1978 - 1994 = 132; 1995 - 2011 = 83.
>
> > There has been a similar story over time with road deaths - without
> > any privatisation. There have also been some shocking accidents since
> > privatisation, directly attributable to poor maintenance, and overall
> > the taxpayer is now spending *more* subsidising the privatised
> > railways.
>
> Well, true, but that is mainly on the infrastructure, which is
> nationalised!
industry, with private ownership of that particular component being in
hiatus after a period of disastrous mismanagement. The railways are no
more nationalised than banking.
> >> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
> >> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
> >> prices have risen on an international basis.
>
> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>
> > As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
>
>
> >http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyan...
>
> > Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
> > prices fixed.
>
> Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>
> I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
> National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
> lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
> source of such goods was controlled by the government.
Oh for the days of food mountains rather than food banks.
> > Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
> > prices fixed.
>
> Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>
> I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
> National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
> lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
> source of such goods was controlled by the government.
Ste
Jun 15, 2013, 6:41:15 AM6/15/13
to
On Jun 14, 12:37 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 13/06/2013 17:42, ®i©ardo wrote:
>
> > On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
> >> On Jun 11, 12:50 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
> >> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>
> > What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
> > funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
> > and killing and maiming more and more people.
> >> That's why the
> >> ECML, having escheated back to the government, is now making a tidy
> >> profit for the taxpayer,
>
> > ...at last...
> > whilst the bidding fiasco for the WCML cost
> >> the taxpayer £100m, all because they'd sacked "inefficient" railway
> >> auditors in the public sector.
> > Even the BBC, for all its left wing bent, disagrees with your fantasy
> > there:
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21266501
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213163/West-Coast-Main-Line-...
> On 13/06/2013 17:42, ®i©ardo wrote:
>
> > On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
> >> On Jun 11, 12:50 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
> >> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>
> > What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
> > funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
> > and killing and maiming more and more people.
> >> That's why the
> >> ECML, having escheated back to the government, is now making a tidy
> >> profit for the taxpayer,
>
> > ...at last...
> > whilst the bidding fiasco for the WCML cost
> >> the taxpayer £100m, all because they'd sacked "inefficient" railway
> >> auditors in the public sector.
> > Even the BBC, for all its left wing bent, disagrees with your fantasy
> > there:
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21266501
> > They used the civil servants for the process who lived up to their usual
> > standards of efficiency. THAT is what cost us all a fortune - civil
> > service jobsworths!
> >> This agenda is intentional of course. As long as people attribute
> >> blame to the public sector instead of the "inefficiency" parrots, then
> >> the rich can carry on seizing taxpayers assets for pennies in the
> >> pound, and rolling back important public services.
> > Oh, dear, still spewing out your make believe old hoary chestnuts. If
> > you didn't have the rich - those who pay more tax than anyone else in
> > this country, you wouldn't have any "public services" at all, few of
> > which started out being owned by the state in any event.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
> >>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
> >>> prices have risen on an international basis.
> >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
> >> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
> >>http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-...
> > standards of efficiency. THAT is what cost us all a fortune - civil
> > service jobsworths!
> >> This agenda is intentional of course. As long as people attribute
> >> blame to the public sector instead of the "inefficiency" parrots, then
> >> the rich can carry on seizing taxpayers assets for pennies in the
> >> pound, and rolling back important public services.
> > Oh, dear, still spewing out your make believe old hoary chestnuts. If
> > you didn't have the rich - those who pay more tax than anyone else in
> > this country, you wouldn't have any "public services" at all, few of
> > which started out being owned by the state in any event.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
> >>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
> >>> prices have risen on an international basis.
> >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
> >> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
> >>http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyan...
> >> Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
> >> prices fixed.
>
> > Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>
> > I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
> > National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
> > lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
> > source of such goods was controlled by the government.
>
> Ste is still seething that National Dried Milk, orange juice concentrate
> and cod liver oil were discontinued.
>
> Seeing people wearing glasses which don't have standard NHS-issue pink
> plastic-covered round lenses has him boiling.
Since when did this change? You still have to pay for glasses if you
> >> prices fixed.
>
> > Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>
> > I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
> > National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
> > lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
> > source of such goods was controlled by the government.
>
> Ste is still seething that National Dried Milk, orange juice concentrate
> and cod liver oil were discontinued.
>
> Seeing people wearing glasses which don't have standard NHS-issue pink
> plastic-covered round lenses has him boiling.
want anything respectable - including for lenses that don't look like
the bottom of a beer glass
JNugent
Jun 15, 2013, 7:22:01 AM6/15/13
to
You still seeth and boil at the very thought of any private provision.
For you, it's still 1949, or should be.
> You still have to pay for glasses if you
> want anything respectable - including for lenses that don't look like
> the bottom of a beer glass
that warm glow inside. It's still the late 1940s, God's in His Heaven,
Bevan's in his health ministry, there is no broadcaster other than the
BBC, food and clothing are rationed and will remain so for the
forseeable future - and all's well with the world and Ste is deliriously
happy that people can't have what they really want.
®i©ardo
Jun 15, 2013, 9:39:17 AM6/15/13
to
On 15/06/2013 11:38, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 13, 5:42 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>>
>>>> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
>>>> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
>>>> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
>>>> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>>
>>>> http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>>
>>> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
>>> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>>
>> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
>> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
>> and killing and maiming more and more people.
>
> Where it has become "inefficient" it has been the result of earlier so-
> called "efficiency savings"
As I've already pointed out to you, the only effect that dramatic
> On Jun 13, 5:42 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>>
>>>> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
>>>> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
>>>> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
>>>> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>>
>>>> http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>>
>>> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
>>> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>>
>> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
>> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
>> and killing and maiming more and more people.
>
> Where it has become "inefficient" it has been the result of earlier so-
> called "efficiency savings"
increases in NHS funding has had is to make it slide down the efficiency
scales even further.
. For example, you sack cleaners for
> "efficiency", and then complain about the "inefficiency" of infections
> and deaths that result.
that they are not fit for the job. It needs people with real business
experience.
So you sack a few managers for "efficiency",
> and then complain that the organisation is poorly managed. So you send
> in a few private sector bosses, who go through the whole procedure
> again - sack workers doing real work for reasons of "efficiency", and
> then bring in more people who think like themselves when the
> consequences finally show themselves.
>
grasp about that. They ARE inefficient, they ARE killing and maiming
people on a daily basis and they are run by THE PUBLIC SECTOR!
If the private sector had even one-tenth failed to the extent that the
NHS has YOU would screaming be MURDER, CLOSE IT DOWN!
It is the state officials/civil servants running it that are the problem.
>
>
>>> That's why the
>>> ECML, having escheated back to the government, is now making a tidy
>>> profit for the taxpayer,
>>
>> ...at last...
>>
>> whilst the bidding fiasco for the WCML cost
>>
>>> the taxpayer £100m, all because they'd sacked "inefficient" railway
>>> auditors in the public sector.
>>
>> Even the BBC, for all its left wing bent, disagrees with your fantasy there:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21266501
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213163/West-Coast-Main-Line-...
>>
>> They used the civil servants for the process who lived up to their usual
>> standards of efficiency. THAT is what cost us all a fortune - civil
>> service jobsworths!
>
> All the BBC article says is that the franchising system is "too
> complex", and that there is "inadequate planning" and "poor
> governance" in the public sector.
More planning of course requires
> more manpower
unwieldly. It needs people capable of running it properly, or it needs
to be broken up into viable units!
and more stability of political agendas, and of course
> it is difficult to manage the organisation effectively when the
> obvious managerial action,
of our MPs have never had a proper job and, as the great (and ongoing)
expenses scandals revealed, should not be let anywhere near any money
that does not belong to them.
internalisation of the railways into one
> corporate body,
as Network Rail is and where most expenses are incurred through
inefficiency than through the train operating companies.
is vetoed by pro-market politicians.
By disallowing
> that course of action, you obviously weed out effective, rational
> managers with a competent understanding of the system, and instead
> attract those with the habitual incoherency of thinking and approach
> that allows them to tolerate the situation without becoming
> demoralised.
>
to stay. After all, it so much harder to be sacked for incompetence in
the public sector than elsewhere - just ask the guy who was running the
Mid Staffs debâcle, until he was PROMOTED within the NHS! That seems to
be the state system, recognise an employee for his/her gross
incompetence and then promote them.
>
>
>>>> When it comes to schools it is the private rather than the state sector
>>>> that excels and when it comes to the railways the number of deaths has
>>>> reduced dramatically: UK rail deaths 1978 - 1994 = 132; 1995 - 2011 = 83.
>>
>>> There has been a similar story over time with road deaths - without
>>> any privatisation. There have also been some shocking accidents since
>>> privatisation, directly attributable to poor maintenance, and overall
>>> the taxpayer is now spending *more* subsidising the privatised
>>> railways.
>>
>> Well, true, but that is mainly on the infrastructure, which is
>> nationalised!
>
> I think it best conceived as a component of a very much privatised
> industry, with private ownership of that particular component being in
> hiatus after a period of disastrous mismanagement. The railways are no
> more nationalised than banking.
>
>
Apart from Network Rail, which is living up to its status:
>
>>>> When it comes to schools it is the private rather than the state sector
>>>> that excels and when it comes to the railways the number of deaths has
>>>> reduced dramatically: UK rail deaths 1978 - 1994 = 132; 1995 - 2011 = 83.
>>
>>> There has been a similar story over time with road deaths - without
>>> any privatisation. There have also been some shocking accidents since
>>> privatisation, directly attributable to poor maintenance, and overall
>>> the taxpayer is now spending *more* subsidising the privatised
>>> railways.
>>
>> Well, true, but that is mainly on the infrastructure, which is
>> nationalised!
>
> I think it best conceived as a component of a very much privatised
> industry, with private ownership of that particular component being in
> hiatus after a period of disastrous mismanagement. The railways are no
> more nationalised than banking.
>
>
http://news.sky.com/story/1102586/network-rail-told-to-cut-2bn-spending-plans
>
>
>>>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
>>>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
>>>> prices have risen on an international basis.
>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>>
>>> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
>>
>>> http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-...
>>
>>> http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyan...
>>
>>> Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
>>> prices fixed.
>>
>> Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>>
>> I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
>> National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
>> lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
>> source of such goods was controlled by the government.
>
> Oh for the days of food mountains rather than food banks.
>
abelard
Jun 15, 2013, 10:47:43 AM6/15/13
to
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>All the BBC article says is that the franchising system is "too
>complex",
which is why some of the biggest and most effective companies
run on a franchise model...
whereas the bbc is a highly subsidised money pit..where service
is a distant dream...
you don't have a clue...you live in a protected dream world...
wrote:
>All the BBC article says is that the franchising system is "too
>complex",
run on a franchise model...
whereas the bbc is a highly subsidised money pit..where service
is a distant dream...
you don't have a clue...you live in a protected dream world...
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
Jun 15, 2013, 11:32:46 AM6/15/13
to
abelard
will take a hatchet blade for you in the middle of the streets.
The protected dreamworld where you are supposed to
not only sponsor your adversaries, but actively defend them as well.
The protected dreamworld where absolutely anyone can get away
with absolutely anything in the name of gov't.
That protected dreamworld where your choice is death or bongo.
The STATE as your New Religion, or Freedom.
They need only reassure you to keep that
protected dreamworld in order to
take away your Liberty.
LIBs. What PRICE their Vision?
---
Even as wave after wave of Terror appear over the horizon
as did so many Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain,
LIBs continue to deny their point of origin,
continue to deny that their intent could
be knowable, insisting that we prosecute
each pilot as an individual.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee voting
for OBAMA is like a Chicken voting for Col. Sanders...
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/123755.jpg
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Ste
>>All the BBC article says is that the franchising system is "too
>>complex",
>
> which is why some of the biggest and most effective companies
> run on a franchise model...
>
> whereas the bbc is a highly subsidised money pit..where service
> is a distant dream...
>
> you don't have a clue...you live in a protected dream world...
The protected dreamworld where military personnel
>>complex",
>
> which is why some of the biggest and most effective companies
> run on a franchise model...
>
> whereas the bbc is a highly subsidised money pit..where service
> is a distant dream...
>
> you don't have a clue...you live in a protected dream world...
will take a hatchet blade for you in the middle of the streets.
The protected dreamworld where you are supposed to
not only sponsor your adversaries, but actively defend them as well.
The protected dreamworld where absolutely anyone can get away
with absolutely anything in the name of gov't.
That protected dreamworld where your choice is death or bongo.
The STATE as your New Religion, or Freedom.
They need only reassure you to keep that
protected dreamworld in order to
take away your Liberty.
LIBs. What PRICE their Vision?
---
Even as wave after wave of Terror appear over the horizon
as did so many Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain,
LIBs continue to deny their point of origin,
continue to deny that their intent could
be knowable, insisting that we prosecute
each pilot as an individual.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee voting
for OBAMA is like a Chicken voting for Col. Sanders...
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/123755.jpg
Topaz
Jun 16, 2013, 5:07:14 AM6/16/13
to
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:32:46 GMT, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
<ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote:
>Even as wave after wave of Terror appear over the horizon
>as did so many Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain,
>LIBs continue to deny their point of origin,
>continue to deny that their intent could
>be knowable, insisting that we prosecute
>each pilot as an individual.
>
BERLIN, REICHSTAG
<ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote:
>Even as wave after wave of Terror appear over the horizon
>as did so many Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain,
>LIBs continue to deny their point of origin,
>continue to deny that their intent could
>be knowable, insisting that we prosecute
>each pilot as an individual.
>
Adolf Hitler
Part of his Speech of May 4, 1941
Even my warnings against night bombings of the civilian
population, as advocated by Mr. Churchill, were interpreted as a sign
of German impotence. He, the most bloodthirsty or amateurish
strategist that history has ever known, actually saw fit to believe
that the reserve displayed for months by the German Air Force could be
looked upon only as proof of their incapacity to fly by night.
So this man for months ordered his paid scribblers to deceive the
British people into believing that the Royal Air Force alone - and no
others - was in a position to wage war in this way, and that thus ways
and means had been found to force the Reich to its knees by the
ruthless onslaught of the British Air Force on the German civilian
population in conjunction with the starvation blockade.
Again and again I uttered these warnings against this specific
type of aerial warfare, and I did so for over three and a half months.
That these warnings failed to impress Mr. Churchill does not surprise
me in the least. For what does this man care for the lives of others?
What does he care for culture or for architecture? When war broke out
he stated clearly that he wanted to have his war, even though the
cities of England might be reduced to ruins. So now he has got his
war.
My assurances that from a given moment every one of his bombs
would be returned if necessary a hundredfold failed to induce this man
to consider even for an instant the criminal nature of his action. He
professes not to be in the least depressed and he even assures us that
the British people, too, after such bombing raids, greeted him with a
joyous serenity, causing him to return to London refreshed by his
visits to the stricken areas.
It is possible that this sight strengthened Mr. Churchill in his
firm determination to continue the war in this way, and we are no less
determined to continue to retaliate, if necessary, a hundred bombs for
every one of his and to go on doing so until the British nation at
last gets rid of this criminal and his methods...
GOD KNOWS THAT I WANTED PEACE. But I can do nothing but protect
the interests of the Reich with those means which, thank God, are at
our disposal...
Topaz
Jun 16, 2013, 6:03:54 AM6/16/13
to
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:54:37 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:
>hitler was a socialist.
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it 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
the 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?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
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 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.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
>..so hitler was a liar...
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
>like any socialist he would say whatever gave him profit at the
> moment...
Jewish version. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
wrote:
>hitler was a socialist.
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it 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
the 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?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
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 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.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
>..so hitler was a liar...
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
>like any socialist he would say whatever gave him profit at the
> moment...
The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.
The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
>
>�National socialism derives from each of two camps the pure idea that
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.
The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
>
>characterises it:
> National resolution from bourgeois tradition;
> vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.�
> [January, 1934]
>
>�We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
>are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.�
>Toland (Speech of May 1, 1927)
>
>hitler's system of rule was copied from the russian marxists...
>
National Socialism really was for the people. Communism was the phony
> National resolution from bourgeois tradition;
> vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.�
> [January, 1934]
>
>�We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
>system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
>salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
>wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
>are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.�
>Toland (Speech of May 1, 1927)
>
>hitler's system of rule was copied from the russian marxists...
>
Jewish version. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
>
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
>
>you know nothing
>so as usual...rest binned unread
>
>you are an ignorant time waster...
You have your head up your aft end, figuratively speaking.
>so as usual...rest binned unread
>
>you are an ignorant time waster...
Ste
Jun 17, 2013, 7:07:11 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 15, 2:39 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
> On 15/06/2013 11:38, Ste wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 5:42 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
> >> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>
> >>>> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
> >>>> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
> >>>> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
> >>>> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>
> >>>>http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>
> >>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>
> >>> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
> >>> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>
> >> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
> >> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
> >> and killing and maiming more and more people.
>
> > Where it has become "inefficient" it has been the result of earlier so-
> > called "efficiency savings"
>
> As I've already pointed out to you, the only effect that dramatic
> increases in NHS funding has had is to make it slide down the efficiency
> scales even further.
Then I wonder where this funding has gone, because it certainly hasn't
> On 15/06/2013 11:38, Ste wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 5:42 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
> >> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>
> >>>> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
> >>>> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
> >>>> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
> >>>> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>
> >>>>http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>
> >>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>
> >>> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
> >>> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>
> >> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
> >> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
> >> and killing and maiming more and more people.
>
> > Where it has become "inefficient" it has been the result of earlier so-
> > called "efficiency savings"
>
> As I've already pointed out to you, the only effect that dramatic
> increases in NHS funding has had is to make it slide down the efficiency
> scales even further.
gone on nurses or hospital cleaners. Probably into the pockets of PFI
bosses, or on another IT disaster delivered by private sector
contractors. Same with the railways - taxpayer subsidy is higher than
ever, because we're back to the necessary baseline of input *plus* the
costs of fragmentation and private profit, *and* this is on top of the
fact that travellers are paying a bomb more than they ever paid in the
days of British Rail..
> . For example, you sack cleaners for
>
> > "efficiency", and then complain about the "inefficiency" of infections
> > and deaths that result.
>
> No, the jobsworths running the NHS do that sort of thing, thus PROVING
> that they are not fit for the job. It needs people with real business
> experience.
experience necessary to run public business - just as the private
sector broadly has the people with necessary experience to run private
business. Of course, when public sector managers come into conflict
with pro-market politicians who aren't willing to be contradicted in
their ideology, then ultimately those experienced managers must either
do as they are told or leave.
What right-wingers don't understand, or more likely that they do
understand but aren't willing to be frank, is that the aims of private
business and the self-interested approach that is functional when they
can (amongst other things) externalise the costs of their behaviour,
is not functional for people trying to keep an integrated system
running as a whole.
For example, for a private boss, lower taxes simply mean more in his
own pocket - and there is no direct countervailing financial effect (a
reduction in government spending, for example, might hit another
business and not his own). For a government, lower taxes *obviously*
mean a reduced income for the organisation as a whole - it's not
acceptable to act in a way that beggars another government department,
in a way that a private sector boss feels free to beggar his
competitors. Nor is it acceptable for a government under democratic
political control to beggar its workers, in a way that a private
sector boss feels free.
As such it's not at all obvious that there is any great overlap
between effective private and public sector management.
It's also not the case that private sector management is more
effective systematically or over the long term. Left to its own
devices, the private sectors hits substantial crisis and extensive
bankruptcy roughly every 30 years - invariably caused by short-term
management horizons and disintegrated behaviour - as well as
unrelentingly beggaring all but the very richest. Meanwhile government
institutions in Britain have centuries of continuity without collapse
or overthrow - the British public sector, and the public sectors of
the richest European nations in general, are extremely well managed
and extremely effective by both world and historical standards, and by
the standards of any private sector comparison (e.g. healthcare UK
public vs US private, energy markets France public vs UK private,
prisons UK public vs US private, railways German public vs UK private,
etc.).
When the private sector works at all, it tends to be when the taxpayer
bankrolls blue sky research and development, which is eventually
integrated back into the large-scale and pedestrian operations of the
public sector.
> So you sack a few managers for "efficiency",
> > and then complain that the organisation is poorly managed. So you send
> > in a few private sector bosses, who go through the whole procedure
> > again - sack workers doing real work for reasons of "efficiency", and
> > then bring in more people who think like themselves when the
> > consequences finally show themselves.
>
> The whole thing is run by incompetent morons of your ilk. What can't you
> grasp about that. They ARE inefficient, they ARE killing and maiming
> people on a daily basis and they are run by THE PUBLIC SECTOR!
> If the private sector had even one-tenth failed to the extent that the
> NHS has YOU would screaming be MURDER, CLOSE IT DOWN!
the sick on the streets outside the hospital. I'm not saying you never
get incompetent or malicious operators in the public sector - it's
just that the private sector is no answer to it, being systematically
incompetent and malicious toward any reasonable aim other than the
enrichment of the owners.
> It is the state officials/civil servants running it that are the problem.
and not by pro-market, pro-rich politicians.
> More planning of course requires
>
> > more manpower
>
> ...no it doesn't, the NHS Europe's largest employer and it is too
> unwieldly. It needs people capable of running it properly, or it needs
> to be broken up into viable units!
The public sector used to have dedicated units for things like IT, or
buildings management - you don't expect doctors or healthcare managers
to have to be overly concerned with these matters (although it will
certainly help to have on board the odd information technologist, or
buildings architect, who has worked in a hospital and knows how a
hospital works). These things used to be handled in the public sector.
Now, no doubt, doctors are having to fulfil the role of lion-tamers
trying to manage the private providers of these services.
> and more stability of political agendas, and of course
>
> > it is difficult to manage the organisation effectively when the
> > obvious managerial action,
>
> The last thing it needs is politicians being involved.
is for your brand of politician to install private sector bosses at
the top, and then pretend that they are "hands off", having appointed
their agents of disaster.
> The vast majority
> of our MPs have never had a proper job and, as the great (and ongoing)
> expenses scandals revealed, should not be let anywhere near any money
> that does not belong to them.
private schools and have been bankrolled into politics by rich
businessmen and press barons, all trying to purchase the levers of
government for private ends.
> internalisation of the railways into one
> > corporate body,
>
> Ah, so you'd have an NHS clone on tracks, run by even more jobsworths -
> as Network Rail is and where most expenses are incurred through
> inefficiency than through the train operating companies.
All that happened when they closed "inefficient" lines and sold off
trackbeds, was that they destroyed the railways as an integrated mode
of public transport and ensured that it could never again become one -
the "inefficiency" turned out to be the red meat of the organisation,
as usual. All of what was "saved" and much more on top, has had to go
into cars and roads instead - that might be a good thing in the scheme
of things, but it's merely turned out to be a reallocation of
investment, not an "efficiency saving" as originally conceived.
> >>>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
> >>>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
> >>>> prices have risen on an international basis.
>
> >>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>
> >>> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
>
> >>>http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-...
>
> >>>http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyan...
>
> >>> Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
> >>> prices fixed.
>
> >> Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>
> >> I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
> >> National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
> >> lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
> >> source of such goods was controlled by the government.
>
> > Oh for the days of food mountains rather than food banks.
>
> You obviously know even less about that subject. Everything was rationed!
the country had been battered by war, spent a war chest, and run up a
national debt unheard of prior to that time, people were having to
march on the streets for food, in an economy that supposedly couldn't
afford food or wages anymore.
®i©ardo
Jun 24, 2013, 5:48:31 AM6/24/13
to
On 18/06/2013 00:07, Ste wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:39 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/06/2013 11:38, Ste wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 5:42 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>>
>>>>>> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
>>>>>> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
>>>>>> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
>>>>>> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>>
>>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>>
>>>>> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
>>>>> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>>
>>>> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
>>>> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
>>>> and killing and maiming more and more people.
>>
>>> Where it has become "inefficient" it has been the result of earlier so-
>>> called "efficiency savings"
>>
>> As I've already pointed out to you, the only effect that dramatic
>> increases in NHS funding has had is to make it slide down the efficiency
>> scales even further.
>
> Then I wonder where this funding has gone, because it certainly hasn't
> gone on nurses or hospital cleaners.
It has gone to the sate employed NHS chiefs and some of their Indians.
> On Jun 15, 2:39 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/06/2013 11:38, Ste wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 5:42 pm, ®i©ardo <h...@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2013 16:12, Ste wrote:
>>
>>>>>> As for" disasters, just take a close look at the NHS and see an ongoing
>>>>>> disaster in action. Thousands of unnecessary deaths, and astronomical
>>>>>> bills for medical incompetence compensation payouts, despite the fact
>>>>>> that as spending on it increases, so efficiency falls.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.abpi.org.uk/industry-info/knowledge-hub/medicines/Pages/nh...
>>
>>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/stop-ringfencing-nhs.
>>
>>>>> They keep hacking away at imagined "inefficiency", which is in fact
>>>>> the live flesh and musculature of the public sector.
>>
>>>> What is? The NHS is a disaster area where despite more and more public
>>>> funds being showered upon it it is becoming more and more inefficient
>>>> and killing and maiming more and more people.
>>
>>> Where it has become "inefficient" it has been the result of earlier so-
>>> called "efficiency savings"
>>
>> As I've already pointed out to you, the only effect that dramatic
>> increases in NHS funding has had is to make it slide down the efficiency
>> scales even further.
>
> Then I wonder where this funding has gone, because it certainly hasn't
> gone on nurses or hospital cleaners.
Probably into the pockets of PFI
> bosses, or on another IT disaster delivered by private sector
> contractors.
But ordered and delivered to the specific specific specification of NHS
> bosses, or on another IT disaster delivered by private sector
> contractors.
employees. To have done otherwise would have been a breach of a
contractual agreement drawn up by those same public servants.
Same with the railways - taxpayer subsidy is higher than
> ever, because we're back to the necessary baseline of input *plus* the
> costs of fragmentation and private profit, *and* this is on top of the
> fact that travellers are paying a bomb more than they ever paid in the
> days of British Rail..
>
it's unqualified success in getting people back on the trains. All those
years of British Rail being run by trade union despots who didn't, and
still couldn't, give a f*ck about the travelling public did enormous
damage and simply drove people away from the railways..
>
>
>
>> . For example, you sack cleaners for
>>
>>> "efficiency", and then complain about the "inefficiency" of infections
>>> and deaths that result.
>>
>> No, the jobsworths running the NHS do that sort of thing, thus PROVING
>> that they are not fit for the job. It needs people with real business
>> experience.
>
> Broadly speaking, the public sector always has had people with the
> experience necessary to run public business - just as the private
> sector broadly has the people with necessary experience to run private
> business.
"running" it are so grossly incompetent that if they were in the private
sector they would be in JAIL!
Of course, when public sector managers come into conflict
> with pro-market politicians who aren't willing to be contradicted in
> their ideology, then ultimately those experienced managers must either
> do as they are told or leave.
>
handling of it borders on criminal negligence, aided and abetted with
massive cover ups. Well done, you're beginning to see the light, at last.
> What right-wingers don't understand, or more likely that they do
> understand but aren't willing to be frank, is that the aims of private
> business and the self-interested approach that is functional when they
> can (amongst other things) externalise the costs of their behaviour,
> is not functional for people trying to keep an integrated system
> running as a whole.
>
extremely good at it. Of course there is a self-interested approach in
ANY business that wishes to survive and virtually every business runs
and integrated system. How could those that contribute so much to this
country's financial well being by by way of taxation, such as British
Aerospace, do anything other than run an integrated system, given their
many, many facets?
> For example, for a private boss, lower taxes simply mean more in his
> own pocket - and there is no direct countervailing financial effect (a
> reduction in government spending, for example, might hit another
> business and not his own).
rather than having to lay them off.
For a government, lower taxes *obviously*
> mean a reduced income for the organisation as a whole - it's not
> acceptable to act in a way that beggars another government department,
> in a way that a private sector boss feels free to beggar his
> competitors. Nor is it acceptable for a government under democratic
> political control to beggar its workers, in a way that a private
> sector boss feels free.
>
of employing them. They consume valuable resources, including money
which has to be EARNED by someone in the first place, which someone is
the penalised so that the state has money to maintain non-jobs for the
drones.
> As such it's not at all obvious that there is any great overlap
> between effective private and public sector management.
>
private company that you wish, for the simple reason that IF any private
company was run like the NHS it would be out of business through
bankruptcy and criminal charges.
> It's also not the case that private sector management is more
> effective systematically or over the long term. Left to its own
> devices, the private sectors hits substantial crisis and extensive
> bankruptcy roughly every 30 years - invariably caused by short-term
> management horizons and disintegrated behaviour - as well as
> unrelentingly beggaring all but the very richest. Meanwhile government
> institutions in Britain have centuries of continuity without collapse
> or overthrow - the British public sector, and the public sectors of
> the richest European nations in general, are extremely well managed
> and extremely effective by both world and historical standards, and by
> the standards of any private sector comparison (e.g. healthcare UK
> public vs US private, energy markets France public vs UK private,
> prisons UK public vs US private, railways German public vs UK private,
> etc.).
>
they are shielded form cause and effect by having other people's money
thrown at them, regardless of whether it works.
This is how our state run docks were bankrupted, thanks to head in the
sand trade union intransigence, how our coal industry was bankrupted,
how our steel industry was bankrupted and so on. It simply did not work
then and it does not work now!
> When the private sector works at all, it tends to be when the taxpayer
> bankrolls blue sky research and development, which is eventually
> integrated back into the large-scale and pedestrian operations of the
> public sector.
>
privilege of doing so, there would be no private sector, simply because
there would be nothing to fund it. The fact there is an ever producing
milch cow to hand is the only reason that the state's inefficiency has
been perpetuated.
>> So you sack a few managers for "efficiency",
>>> and then complain that the organisation is poorly managed. So you send
>>> in a few private sector bosses, who go through the whole procedure
>>> again - sack workers doing real work for reasons of "efficiency", and
>>> then bring in more people who think like themselves when the
>>> consequences finally show themselves.
>>
>> The whole thing is run by incompetent morons of your ilk. What can't you
>> grasp about that. They ARE inefficient, they ARE killing and maiming
>> people on a daily basis and they are run by THE PUBLIC SECTOR!
>
> Captial letters do *not* add substance to your argument.
>
be emphasised for you time and time again, although pictures may be a
better method for you. The reason why this country is teetering on the
edge of bankruptcy is because the state spends more than the private
sector can earn on non-productive things.
>
>
>> If the private sector had even one-tenth failed to the extent that the
>> NHS has YOU would screaming be MURDER, CLOSE IT DOWN!
>
> Private sector healthcare in the US does murder people - by parking
> the sick on the streets outside the hospital. I'm not saying you never
> get incompetent or malicious operators in the public sector - it's
> just that the private sector is no answer to it, being systematically
> incompetent and malicious toward any reasonable aim other than the
> enrichment of the owners.
>
>
>
>> It is the state officials/civil servants running it that are the problem.
>
> Then replace them, but not with private sector slash-and-burn bosses,
> and not by pro-market, pro-rich politicians.
>
of having run something efficiently, not some jobsworth who is promoted
purely on his ability to say "yes" rather than "why"?
>
>
>> More planning of course requires
>>
>>> more manpower
>>
>> ...no it doesn't, the NHS Europe's largest employer and it is too
>> unwieldly. It needs people capable of running it properly, or it needs
>> to be broken up into viable units!
>
> Maybe it does need to be broken up. But not into the private sector.
require the thing to be run costt effectively, rather than on a jobs for
the for the boys basis.
> The public sector used to have dedicated units for things like IT,
couldn't make it up! £12 billion totally wasted thanks to Tony Blair and
the NHS between them!
or
> buildings management - you don't expect doctors or healthcare managers
> to have to be overly concerned with these matters (although it will
> certainly help to have on board the odd information technologist, or
> buildings architect, who has worked in a hospital and knows how a
> hospital works). These things used to be handled in the public sector.
> Now, no doubt, doctors are having to fulfil the role of lion-tamers
> trying to manage the private providers of these services.
>
of NHS doctors, yet is embraced by those in private practice.
>
>
>> and more stability of political agendas, and of course
>>
>>> it is difficult to manage the organisation effectively when the
>>> obvious managerial action,
>>
>> The last thing it needs is politicians being involved.
>
> Yes, your brand of pro-market politicians. And the last thing it needs
> is for your brand of politician to install private sector bosses at
> the top, and then pretend that they are "hands off", having appointed
> their agents of disaster.
>
No, ANY politician and particularly those who have been bought by the
>
>> and more stability of political agendas, and of course
>>
>>> it is difficult to manage the organisation effectively when the
>>> obvious managerial action,
>>
>> The last thing it needs is politicians being involved.
>
> Yes, your brand of pro-market politicians. And the last thing it needs
> is for your brand of politician to install private sector bosses at
> the top, and then pretend that they are "hands off", having appointed
> their agents of disaster.
>
trade union movement.
>
>
>> The vast majority
>> of our MPs have never had a proper job and, as the great (and ongoing)
>> expenses scandals revealed, should not be let anywhere near any money
>> that does not belong to them.
>
> Quite so! This is the generation of politicians who all went to
> private schools and have been bankrolled into politics by rich
> businessmen and press barons, all trying to purchase the levers of
> government for private ends.
>
Rubbish, the ones taking the backhanders are the Labour Party, 81% of
>
>> The vast majority
>> of our MPs have never had a proper job and, as the great (and ongoing)
>> expenses scandals revealed, should not be let anywhere near any money
>> that does not belong to them.
>
> Quite so! This is the generation of politicians who all went to
> private schools and have been bankrolled into politics by rich
> businessmen and press barons, all trying to purchase the levers of
> government for private ends.
>
whose funds come from the trade union movement.
>
>
>> internalisation of the railways into one
>>> corporate body,
>>
>> Ah, so you'd have an NHS clone on tracks, run by even more jobsworths -
>> as Network Rail is and where most expenses are incurred through
>> inefficiency than through the train operating companies.
>
> We've had the "inefficiency" argument on the railways since Beeching.
> All that happened when they closed "inefficient" lines and sold off
> trackbeds, was that they destroyed the railways as an integrated mode
> of public transport and ensured that it could never again become one -
> the "inefficiency" turned out to be the red meat of the organisation,
> as usual. All of what was "saved" and much more on top, has had to go
> into cars and roads instead - that might be a good thing in the scheme
> of things, but it's merely turned out to be a reallocation of
> investment, not an "efficiency saving" as originally conceived.
>
What do you mean by "they"? Please don't forget that the Labour Party
>
>> internalisation of the railways into one
>>> corporate body,
>>
>> Ah, so you'd have an NHS clone on tracks, run by even more jobsworths -
>> as Network Rail is and where most expenses are incurred through
>> inefficiency than through the train operating companies.
>
> We've had the "inefficiency" argument on the railways since Beeching.
> All that happened when they closed "inefficient" lines and sold off
> trackbeds, was that they destroyed the railways as an integrated mode
> of public transport and ensured that it could never again become one -
> the "inefficiency" turned out to be the red meat of the organisation,
> as usual. All of what was "saved" and much more on top, has had to go
> into cars and roads instead - that might be a good thing in the scheme
> of things, but it's merely turned out to be a reallocation of
> investment, not an "efficiency saving" as originally conceived.
>
when in power closed at least as many miles of track, if not more, than
their predecessors did.
>
>
>>>>>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
>>>>>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
>>>>>> prices have risen on an international basis.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>>
>>>>> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
>>
>>>>> http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-...
>>
>>>>> http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyan...
>>
>>>>> Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
>>>>> prices fixed.
>>
>>>> Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>>
>>>> I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
>>>> National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
>>>> lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
>>>> source of such goods was controlled by the government.
>>
>>> Oh for the days of food mountains rather than food banks.
>>
>> You obviously know even less about that subject. Everything was rationed!
>
> Which meant that everybody got fed. By contrast, in the 30s, *before*
> the country had been battered by war, spent a war chest, and run up a
> national debt unheard of prior to that time, people were having to
> march on the streets for food, in an economy that supposedly couldn't
> afford food or wages anymore.
>
You obviously weren't around then which explains why you know absolutely
>
>>>>>> As for electricity prices you will find that the "green scams" agreed by
>>>>>> the last government are are major contributors to this, whilst gas
>>>>>> prices have risen on an international basis.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278
>>
>>>>> As for electricity prices, consider these for just a taste:
>>
>>>>> http://www.psiru.org/reports/electricity-restructuring-privatisation-...
>>
>>>>> http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyan...
>>
>>>>> Let alone all the more recent findings of markets being rigged and
>>>>> prices fixed.
>>
>>>> Which also happened prior to nationalisation...
>>
>>>> I suppose you were happy in the days when we had National Butter and
>>>> National Margarine, because not giving the plebs any choice made their
>>>> lives far easier and they never knew any different because their only
>>>> source of such goods was controlled by the government.
>>
>>> Oh for the days of food mountains rather than food banks.
>>
>> You obviously know even less about that subject. Everything was rationed!
>
> Which meant that everybody got fed. By contrast, in the 30s, *before*
> the country had been battered by war, spent a war chest, and run up a
> national debt unheard of prior to that time, people were having to
> march on the streets for food, in an economy that supposedly couldn't
> afford food or wages anymore.
>
nothing about the situation.
Topaz
Jun 24, 2013, 4:59:51 PM6/24/13
to
The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.
The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
Vidcapper
Jun 25, 2013, 2:24:10 AM6/25/13
to
On 24/06/2013 21:59, Topaz wrote:
>
> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
> if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
> that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
> women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
> great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
> short.
>
> The problem with the schools is that they are PC.
Political correctness is indeed a problem, but there is not the
>
> The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
> means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
> if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
> that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
> women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
> great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
> short.
>
> The problem with the schools is that they are PC.
slightest evidence to blame it on Jews.
Here is
> a quote from Mein Kampf:
stop reading your posts!
--
Regards,
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Topaz
Jun 25, 2013, 5:13:57 AM6/25/13
to
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:24:10 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>Political correctness is indeed a problem, but there is not the
>slightest evidence to blame it on Jews.
Well it started with the Frankfurt School and that was 100% Jews. And
it is promoted in the media, also Jewish:
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here is a quote from Steven Spielberg, "film is the greatest weapon
in the world".
Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group
>
>Here is
>> a quote from Mein Kampf:
>
>Congratulations, you've found the fastest possible way to get people to
>stop reading your posts!
The Jews control your media and your mind. Figuratively speaking, you
have your head up a Jews aft end!
wrote:
>Political correctness is indeed a problem, but there is not the
>slightest evidence to blame it on Jews.
it is promoted in the media, also Jewish:
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here is a quote from Steven Spielberg, "film is the greatest weapon
in the world".
Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group
>
>Here is
>> a quote from Mein Kampf:
>
>Congratulations, you've found the fastest possible way to get people to
>stop reading your posts!
have your head up a Jews aft end!
Eunometic
Jun 26, 2013, 5:52:21 AM6/26/13
to
Nonsense,
When Chamberlin guaranteed Polish Independence to to the Polish dictator Beck it was misunderstood as guaranteeing the borders. This brought the negotiations over the status of the German city of Danzig to a stop as the Poles thought the had no reason to negotiate due to the ineptly worded British promise. . The Poles had also managed to murder about 4500 German in hate crimes since the formation of the Polish state after ww1. Goebels exaggerated this to 50,000 but I think 4500 is bad enough and no worse than Blairs or Bushes exaggerations that were used to start wars.. Hitler had in fact been offering Poland a non aggression pact, an anti Soviet allegiance, economic cooperation in return for rail access to Danzig.
With the hopes of returning Danzig dashed and the state of Germans within Poland parlous Hitlers angry solution was to make a pact with Stalin. Stalin was also aware of tension over the iniquities and ethnic cleansing inflicted on Ukrainians within the Polish state and his country was isolated and needed trading partners. Hungarians had also been expelled. Thus the Polish problem was solved. It might have been different, Poland and Germany might have been allies against Bolshevism, under Hitler.
When Chamberlin guaranteed Polish Independence to to the Polish dictator Beck it was misunderstood as guaranteeing the borders. This brought the negotiations over the status of the German city of Danzig to a stop as the Poles thought the had no reason to negotiate due to the ineptly worded British promise. . The Poles had also managed to murder about 4500 German in hate crimes since the formation of the Polish state after ww1. Goebels exaggerated this to 50,000 but I think 4500 is bad enough and no worse than Blairs or Bushes exaggerations that were used to start wars.. Hitler had in fact been offering Poland a non aggression pact, an anti Soviet allegiance, economic cooperation in return for rail access to Danzig.
With the hopes of returning Danzig dashed and the state of Germans within Poland parlous Hitlers angry solution was to make a pact with Stalin. Stalin was also aware of tension over the iniquities and ethnic cleansing inflicted on Ukrainians within the Polish state and his country was isolated and needed trading partners. Hungarians had also been expelled. Thus the Polish problem was solved. It might have been different, Poland and Germany might have been allies against Bolshevism, under Hitler.
Eunometic
Jun 26, 2013, 5:54:33 AM6/26/13
to
There is no left and right in UK politics, they are essentially the same. Most neo liberal reforms were imposed by Blair not the Tories or a Thatcher.
0 new messages