Liberalism=Socialism=Fascism
Ron Hinds
Very few have the courage to admit it publicly, mostly because they know
they would lose half of their support in the Democratic Party if they did.
But they know it is true as well as I (and most conservatives) do.
Now, I'm going to use *real* simple logic here. I've seen this posted by
virtually every lefty on Usenet at one time or another:
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of State and
Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern fascism.
What the left doesn't seem to get, and which I find *very* funny, is that
they are in fact saying that their favorite ideology, Socialism, is really
Fascism! Think (foreign concept here) about it: In Socialism, the State
*owns* the Corporations! How much more "merged" could they be?
Conservatives, on the other hand, want government *out* of the private
sector (which includes corporations). The "un-merging" of State and
Corporate power, as it were. Or put more simply, anti-Fascism.
Rico X. Partay
news:coqr2a$lo4$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> Conservatives ... want government *out* of the
> private sector (which includes corporations).
Not the kind of "conservatives" currently running the U.S.
gov't. Not vaguely close.
Joe Potter
> ...
> Conservatives, on the other hand, want government *out* of the private
> sector (which includes corporations). The "un-merging" of State and
> Corporate power, as it were. Or put more simply, anti-Fascism.
>
No, they do not want government out of *any* sector. They just want control
by Republicans.
I remember voting for RR and thinking we would roll back government --- did
not happen then, and will not happen now. I voted Republican for 30 years
and got a police state at home and an empire overseas. Not what the old
right stood for, is it?
The modern "conservative" is a socialist who uses conservative language just
as the modern "liberal" is a socialist who hides behind liberal language.
Heads you lose, tails you also lose.
Freedom dies either way --- and he is very, very sick just now.
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the
first duty of intelligent men."
Topaz
wrote:
>Let's start by pulling back the covers. Liberals are actually Socialists.
lib·er·al·ism n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and
the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
from
arbitrary authority.
b The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and
the
gold standard.
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
UBCNRED
> Very few have the courage to admit it publicly, mostly because they know
> they would lose half of their support in the Democratic Party if they did.
> But they know it is true as well as I (and most conservatives) do.
Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village"--what more do you need other
than that book title right there?
>
> Now, I'm going to use *real* simple logic here. I've seen this posted by
> virtually every lefty on Usenet at one time or another:
>
> "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of State
and
> Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern fascism.
>
> What the left doesn't seem to get, and which I find *very* funny, is that
> they are in fact saying that their favorite ideology, Socialism, is really
> Fascism! Think (foreign concept here) about it: In Socialism, the State
> *owns* the Corporations! How much more "merged" could they be?
> Conservatives, on the other hand, want government *out* of the private
> sector (which includes corporations). The "un-merging" of State and
> Corporate power, as it were. Or put more simply, anti-Fascism.
Yeah--great point. Way to go!
How about religion?
They go about professing tolerance of all views and political
correctness--right after us retarded hicks accept gay marriage and no
references AT ALL of God in schools.
Oh and don't forget abortion.. Libs want us all to accept abortion as well
as the total abolition of religions. And if we don't accept their crap they
will just try to make our majority leaders illegitimate--if it weren't so
pathetic it would be funny.
Frank Clarke
>"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of State and
>Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern fascism.
>
>What the left doesn't seem to get, and which I find *very* funny, is that
>they are in fact saying that their favorite ideology, Socialism, is really
>Fascism! Think (foreign concept here) about it: In Socialism, the State
>*owns* the Corporations!
...as opposed to our system in which Congress merely holds the power of
life-and-death over entire industries...
>How much more "merged" could they be?
>Conservatives, on the other hand, want government *out* of the private
>sector (which includes corporations).
...as evidenced by GWB's recent push for protective tariffs for steel which
would protect inefficient American steel producers from efficient foreign steel
producers. Uh-huh... and who paid higher prices for their steel? Did I hear
you say "American taxpayers"?
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Joe Potter
>
> "Ron Hinds" <bi...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:coqr2a$lo4$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>> Let's start by pulling back the covers. Liberals are actually Socialists.
>> Very few have the courage to admit it publicly, mostly because they know
>> they would lose half of their support in the Democratic Party if they
>> did. But they know it is true as well as I (and most conservatives) do.
>
> Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village"--what more do you need other
> than that book title right there?
>
>>
>> Now, I'm going to use *real* simple logic here.
Real simple.
>> I've seen this posted by
>> virtually every lefty on Usenet at one time or another:
>>
>> "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of State
> and
>> Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern fascism.
>>
>> What the left doesn't seem to get, and which I find *very* funny, is that
>> they are in fact saying that their favorite ideology, Socialism, is
>> really Fascism! Think (foreign concept here) about it: In Socialism, the
>> State *owns* the Corporations! How much more "merged" could they be?
>> Conservatives, on the other hand, want government *out* of the private
>> sector (which includes corporations). The "un-merging" of State and
>> Corporate power, as it were. Or put more simply, anti-Fascism.
>
> Yeah--great point. Way to go!
> How about religion?
>
We Republicans forgot the part in the Ten Commandments which says "Thou
shalt not kill" Iraqi women and children or "Thou shall not steal" oil from
brown people. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" on
WMD is also out the God Damn Window.
You murdering bastard; Look to God to forgive your murders, not me.
>
> if it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. ...
>
Your murders and tortures of the innocent do not come even close to humor,
but your eternal payment for your crimes might warm the hearts of a few,
however.
Paul Revere
>Let's start by pulling back the covers. Liberals are actually Socialists.
You equate "Liberals" with "Socialists" without providing a definition of (or
any indication that you have an understanding of) either term, nor do you
offer any evidence in support of your assertion.
Liberalism:
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing
intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and
usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold
standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness
of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the
protection of political and civil liberties
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Socialism:
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and
distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private
property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production
are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and
communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according
to work done
The terms "Liberal" and "Socialist" refer to two separate and distinct groups
of individuals, unless you insist on using your own "special" definitions for
words, in which case your words hold meaning only for yourself.
>Very few have the courage to admit it publicly, mostly because they know
>they would lose half of their support in the Democratic Party if they did.
Either that or most "Liberals", being educated, know the difference between a
"Liberal" and a "Socialist".
>But they know it is true as well as I (and most conservatives) do.
And you would be familiar with the private thoughts of "Liberals" as well as
"most conservatives" because God told you what they think?
>Now, I'm going to use *real* simple logic here. I've seen this posted by
>virtually every lefty on Usenet at one time or another:
>
>"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of State and
>Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern fascism.
>
>What the left doesn't seem to get, and which I find *very* funny, is that
>they are in fact saying that their favorite ideology, Socialism, is really
>Fascism!
Fascists sometimes CALL themselves Socialists or even Communists, as in "The
United Soviet Socialists Republic".
Sometimes Fascists even call themselves Republicans as in the "Bush
Administration".
>Think (foreign concept here) about it: In Socialism, the State
>*owns* the Corporations! How much more "merged" could they be?
What YOU don't get and which I find *very* funny is that whether the
Government owns/controls Corporations or Corporations owns/controls Government
it doesn't matter; they can't get more "merged" either way, and BOTH scenarios
are Fascist by definition.
>Conservatives, on the other hand, want government *out* of the private
>sector (which includes corporations). The "un-merging" of State and
>Corporate power, as it were. Or put more simply, anti-Fascism.
>
>
That IS what actual "Conservatives" want but the Republicans now in power have
demonstrated amply that they are NOT Conservatives. The only government they
want reduced is that which regulates Corporate power.
Ron Hinds
news:ve42r01bm4vqjgb5p...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:53:58 -0800, "Ron Hinds" <bi...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Let's start by pulling back the covers. Liberals are actually Socialists.
This is the *original* definition. It has precious little to do with modern
liberalism. I refer you to definition #3 below. There isn't a liberal out
there that would support anything that definition says. This definition is
of "classic" liberalism. Liberals today don't match it which is why the
Libertarian Party (which used to be called the Liberal Party) changed it's
name.
Ron Hinds
news:yCtsd.67718$GN4.66407@okepread02...
> In article <coqr2a$lo4$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, "Ron Hinds"
> <bi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>Let's start by pulling back the covers. Liberals are actually Socialists.
>
> You equate "Liberals" with "Socialists" without providing a definition of
> (or
> any indication that you have an understanding of) either term, nor do you
> offer any evidence in support of your assertion.
Again, you are providing the definition of "classic" liberalism. Which has
precious little to do with the term as it is used today. Which is why the
Libertarian Party changed their name (it used to be the Liberal Party). Name
me *one* liberal politician who believes in definition 2.b. below. Then name
me one who *doesn't* believe in *all* of the definitions for Socialism
below. Like I said originally, few of them have the courage to admit it
publicly, but in *deed* if not in word they support it.
Topaz
wrote:
>
>This is the *original* definition. It has precious little to do with modern
>liberalism.
The villain of 1984 proclaims, "The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow
the
range of thought." He concludes, "The Revolution will be complete when
the
language is perfect."
> I refer you to definition #3 below. There isn't a liberal out
>there that would support anything that definition says.
Republicans and Libertarians are liberals and they support that.
>This definition is
>of "classic" liberalism. Liberals today don't match it which is why the
>Libertarian Party (which used to be called the Liberal Party) changed it's
>name.
>
America is a liberal country. I see no disctinction between one
group of liberals and another.
NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip
Lee Duigon
If a private citizen tells his neighbor's children that they ought to
try
gay sex, he might wind up in a correctional facility. If he talks that
way
to your 13-year-old son, you'll want him put away--pronto.
But when this very same behavior, toward the same children, is
displayed by
adults who belong to America's biggest teachers' union, most parents
simply
let them do it. In fact, they pay them to.
The NEA is committed to the cause of militant homosexuality. It's the
richest, most politically powerful union in America, and it has daily
access
to most of America's children. And it wants to recruit them for the
homosexual lifestyle.
Lean this equation, America:
Public schools=The homosexual agenda
If you don't believe it, visit nea-glc.org/, the website of the
National
Education Association's Gay and Lesbian Coalition. There, among their
"great
achievements" in shaping NEA policy, the homosexual militants cite the
NEA's
promotion of "the lesbian-gay-bisexual curriculum" and "family life
education... regarding the diversity of sexual orientation."
The NEA has also campaigned for the proclamation of
"Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual History Month" (try putting that on
a
T-shirt), homosexual studies at Catholic colleges--and, of course,
homosexual "marriage."
The people of Massachusetts know the teachers' union's commitment to
"gay
marriage." Aline Isaacson of GLSEN (Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education
Network),
the media's favorite poster gal for "gay marriage", is
also--surprise!--a
paid consultant to the Massachusetts teachers' union. Paid in taxpayer
dollars, to boot. (You may remember Massachusetts GLSEN from a few
years ago
as the organizers of graphic, intensely perverted sex "workshops" for
public
school children--a scandal that came to be known as "fist-gate.")
Ms. Isaacson, according to the grass-roots Article 8 Alliance, these
days
makes it a full-time job lobbying state legislators to keep them from
jumping ship on "gay marriage" and voting for the Bill of Address
which
would remove the outlaw Supreme Judicial Court judges who imposed this
oxymoron on the people of Massachusetts. Supported by taxpayers'
money, she
makes daily, face-to-face visits to individual lawmakers. Nice work if
you
can get it.
Too bad you couldn't make it to the gym teachers' state convention in
New
Jersey, in February. It wasn't about volleyball. For public school gym
teachers, Job One--according to the convention's floor displays,
handouts,
posters, and workshop topics (all of which I saw personally)--is
getting the
kids comfy with homosexuality. To this end, they handed out a
"resource
guide"--handsomely produced, slick, paid for largely by Fleet Bank
Inc.--intended for distribution in all the public schools. (For more
information, see my article, "Now It's the Gym Teachers," in the
February
archive of the Chalcedon website, chalcedon.edu.)
You would have seen even more of the same at "Twenty Years of Great
Sex
(Ed)" last year, a national conference of "sex educators" hosted by
Rutgers,
New Jersey's taxpayer-funded state university. Again, there was no
effort to
hide the educators' whole-hearted penchant for homosexuality...
Baldin Pramer
> There isn't a liberal out
> there that would support anything that definition says.
You're full of it, dittohead. You are so brainwashed that you don't even
know what you are saying.
--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.
Ron Hinds
news:41b3...@nntp.zianet.com...
> Ron Hinds wrote:
>
>> There isn't a liberal out there that would support anything that
>> definition says.
>
> You're full of it, dittohead. You are so brainwashed that you don't even
> know what you are saying.
Fine, then you name me *one* liberal politician who believes this statement
(which you conjveniently left out):
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold
standard.
>
gwhite
>
> Again, you are providing the definition of "classic" liberalism. Which has
> precious little to do with the term as it is used today. Which is why the
> Libertarian Party changed their name (it used to be the Liberal Party). Name
> me *one* liberal politician who believes in definition 2.b. below. Then name
> me one who *doesn't* believe in *all* of the definitions for Socialism
> below. Like I said originally, few of them have the courage to admit it
> publicly, but in *deed* if not in word they support it.
Yep.
http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html
In short, today's so-called "liberals" are not liberals at all, but socialists.
Libertarians are indeed the true liberals. If the term is understood,
liberalism is the antithesis of socialism. Unfortunately, this is rarely
understood.
Richard Hutnik
Not quite. In Socialism/Communism, the State owns the corporations.
In Fascism, corporations own the state. And considering the sheer
level of lobbying by industries in Washington, it is very likely
corporations do own the government today.
A $16 billion bailout for the airline industry indicates who owns
what?!?!?!
- Richard Hutnik
Joe Potter
Republican Representative from Texas Ron Paul. He is certainly no
conservative as the neo-cons define the word.
Your turn. Name one conservative in office who *believes* in laissez-faire
and not just pays lip-service. (Hell, I know of few who will pay
lip-service even!)
Note:
laissez-faire
1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or
interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise
system to operate according to its own economic laws.
2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.
The last one kills off all the Bush administration, eh?
Baldin Pramer
Your original contention was that liberals were actually socialists.
Have you given up on that assertion?
You now require that I find a liberal *politician* who believes in *the
gold standard* and free market economics. Does that mean I will have to
find one who publicly and frequently calls for a return to the gold
standard, and if not, will that prove your contention that all liberals
are socialists?
Topaz
wrote:
>
>Fine, then you name me *one* liberal politician who believes this statement
>(which you conjveniently left out):
>
>An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold
>standard.
>
The USA is a liberal country because it is ruled by Jews.
from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000
Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that
separates
church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to any mixing
of
religion and public life.
A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors
that
have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict separation
between
church and state have waned, Jews are far more reluctant than non-Jews
to
accept references to religion in the public schools or other public
arenas.
''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said
Alan
Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square'' project, one
of
seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts examining the
contemporary
role of religious groups in the United States.
The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual
morality
that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more liberal
than
other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of homosexuality,
abortion, birth control and pornography than do Gentiles,'' the study
found.
''In each case, Jewish leaders are even more tolerant than the Jewish
public.''
For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong,
compared to
23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And while 56
percent of
non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of Jews and 96 percent of
Jewish leaders do.
The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing
on the
Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number of
children in
Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy makers have
suggested
that the community supports the use of vouchers, but the survey
suggests
that Jewish reluctance to support such a step runs deep.
Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious
symbols on public property.
Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s,
and is
driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the public
sphere
means a greater presence of Christianity.
''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many
Jews
feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large
Christian
majority in the American population, would promote an explicitly
Christian
character to the American state and its institutions,'' the study
declared.
''Jews, in particular, were concerned that the schools not be used to
indoctrinate their children in the culture and tenets of
Christianity.''
Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of
anti-Semitism
associated with some Christian groups, and by the community's
liberalism and
secularity, the study said. In recent years, the study said, Jews have
become more accepted in the United States, Jews have become less
liberal,
and a significant fraction of the community has become less secular,
but the
attitudes have remained.
Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39
percent
of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with 63
percent of
non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers that could be
used
at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of non-Jews.
The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States,
the
pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a sample -
they
queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed
by mail
on various matters.
The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim
religious
populations in the United States. Each study will include a poll,
scholarly
papers, and conferences over a three-year period.
Topaz
Hutnik) wrote:
>Not quite. In Socialism/Communism, the State owns the corporations.
>In Fascism, corporations own the state.
Not so.
Here are parts of a post about Mussolini written by a very
anti-Mussolini person. He has done his homework though and cites many
books which are also anti-Mussolini and anti-Fascist. These are some
things they admit:
>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4087
>Left-wing Fascism: An Intellectual Disorder
>By John J. Ray
(Quotes from Mussolini)
"Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the
doctrines of
Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of
economics".
"Fascism now and always believes in holiness and in heroism; that is
to say
in actions influenced by no economic motive"
"Laissez faire is out of date"
"Our programme is simple. We want to rule Italy".
"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be
rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he comforted
himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini
that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister - when he
refused to take his official salary.
"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci
did not aim at the defence of the ruling class or the existing State
but
wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist camp so
as to
prevent a victory of Bolshevism.
even after coming
to power, to take drives in the country with his wife and stop at
various
farmhouses on the way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy
discussing the crops, the weather and all the usual rural topics and
obviously just liked the feeling of being one of the people. His claim
to
represent the people was not just theory but heartfelt. And he never
gave up
his "anti-bourgeois" rhetoric.
His policies were basically protectionist. He
controlled the exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that
old
favourite of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he
tried
to get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on
foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
products.
By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain
production from its traditional level, enabling Italy to cut wheat
imports
by 75% (Smith, 1967, p. 92).
He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and
in 1926 he issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save
wood
pulp. And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e. mixing
industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for cars
(Smith,
1967, p. 87). Mussolini also disliked the population drift from rural
areas
into the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it
unless
official permission was granted
he advocated private enterprise within
a strict set of State controls designed, among other things, to
prevent
abuse of monopoly power (Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).
Some other clearly Leftist initiatives that Mussolini took were a big
expansion of public works and a great improvement in social insurance
measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work) organization to
give
workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf. the Nazi Kraft durch
Freude
movement). His public health measures (such as the attack on
tuberculosis
and the setting up of a huge maternal and child welfare organization)
were
particularly notable for their rationality and efficiency and, as
such, were
rewarded with great success. For instance, the incidence of
tuberculosis
dropped dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20%
(Gregor,
p. 259). Together with big improvements in education and public
infrastructure, such measures gave Fascist Italy what was arguably the
most
advanced welfare State in the world at the time.
And if influential American "liberal" economists such as Galbraith
(1969)
can bemoan the low level of spending on public works as "private
affluence
and public squalor", Mussolini was well ahead on that. As Hibbert
(1962, p.
56) says, Mussolini
"instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway
stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land reclaimed,
forest were
planted and universities were endowed."
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius
12th signed the Lateran treaty - which is still the legal basis for
the
existence of the Vatican State to this day - and Pius in fact at one
stage
called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty recognized
Roman
Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as recognizing the
Vatican
as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in exchange was acceptance by
the
church - something that was enormously important in the Italy of that
time.
the great hatred that existed in prewar
Germany between the Nazis and the "Reds". And the early Fascists
battled the
"Reds" too, of course.
The 1919 election
manifesto, for instance, contained policies of worker control of
industry,
confiscation of war profits, abolition of the Stock exchange, land for
the
peasants and abolition of the Monarchy and nobility. Further,
Mussolini
never ceased to inveigh against "plutocrats".
He wanted a harmonious and united
Italy for all Italians of all classes and was sure that achieving just
treatment for the workers needed neither revolution nor any kind of
artificially enforced equality.
This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This
is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive "voting with
your
feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent Italians from
emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net emigration
actually FELL
under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and the Berlin wall.
Mussolini gained
power through political rather than revolutionary means. His famous
march on
Rome was only superficially revolutionary. The King of Italy and the
army
approved of him because of his pragmatic policies so did not oppose
the
march. So this collusion ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was
essentially bloodless.
His considerable popularity for many years among a wide
range of Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that
was.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create that very
modern
phenomenon constantly now being advocated by Leftists everywhere - a
system
of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate state
was
one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights with
management.
REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen.
Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's
Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.
Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship
Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
(1989)
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
See:
http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm
Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
lecture,
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
San
Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
London:
Routledge.
>And considering the sheer
>level of lobbying by industries in Washington, it is very likely
>corporations do own the government today.
>
>A $16 billion bailout for the airline industry indicates who owns
>what?!?!?!
>
>- Richard Hutnik
In March 1937 Mussolini made a spectacular state visit to Libya, where
he opened a new military highway running the entire length of the
colon., He had himself declared protector of Islam and was presented
with a symbolic sword.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Libya/History
the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini arranged for Muslim notables
from Italian-ruled Libya to gird him with the "sword of Islam" during
a visit to Tripoli. "Muslims may rest assured," Mussolini intoned on
that occasion, "that Italy will always be the friend and protector of
Islam throughout the world." His foreign minister declared Muslim
values perfectly compatible with fascism: "The Islamic world, in
accordance with its traditions, loves in the Duce the wisdom of the
statesman united to the action of the warrior."74
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/90
Mussolini vows to help the Palestinian cause against the Jews.
http://www.stern.de/community/forum/thread.jsp?forum=35&thread=57402&message=840948
Ron Hinds
> Ron Hinds wrote:
>
> > "Baldin Pramer" <bal...@mailtoworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:41b3...@nntp.zianet.com...
> >
> >>Ron Hinds wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There isn't a liberal out there that would support anything that
> >>>definition says.
> >>
> >>You're full of it, dittohead. You are so brainwashed that you don't even
> >>know what you are saying.
> >
> >
> > Fine, then you name me *one* liberal politician who believes this
statement
> > (which you conjveniently left out):
> >
> > An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the
gold
> > standard.
>
> Your original contention was that liberals were actually socialists.
> Have you given up on that assertion?
Nooo... What gave you that idea?
> You now require that I find a liberal *politician* who believes in *the
> gold standard* and free market economics. Does that mean I will have to
> find one who publicly and frequently calls for a return to the gold
> standard, and if not, will that prove your contention that all liberals
> are socialists?
Just find me one who truly believes in free market economics. All I ever
hear them talk about is how the government needs to take over this or that.
Starting with he health care system. How "evil" rich people and corporations
are. Etc.
Thom
wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:44:57 -0800, "Ron Hinds" <bi...@microsoft.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Fine, then you name me *one* liberal politician who believes this statement
>>(which you conjveniently left out):
>>
>>An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold
>>standard.
>>
> The USA is a liberal country because it is ruled by Jews.
then lets hope they keep riuling, its far better than going right wing
and completely destroying the American revolution
THOM
Topaz
wrote:
>
>Just find me one who truly believes in free market economics. All I ever
>hear them talk about is how the government needs to take over this or that.
>Starting with he health care system. How "evil" rich people and corporations
>are. Etc.
"Must I remind you that the FDA is the outgrowth of the "Pure Food and
Drug
Act," which was the result of companies selling all kinds of tainted
food
and drugs! Left to their own accord, corporations will do anything
that
improves the bottom line."
Sparky
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
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
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.
Topaz
>
>then lets hope they keep riuling, its far better than going right wing
>and completely destroying the American revolution
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
Thom
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:46:00 GMT, toml...@melbpc.org.au (Thom) wrote:
>
>>
>>then lets hope they keep riuling, its far better than going right wing
>>and completely destroying the American revolution
>
>
>The Origins of Political Correctness
>An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
don't you have any thoughts of your own?
THOM
Frank Clarke
<08ukr0ht1t2ajak03...@4ax.com>
> 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.
There's a law against being greedy? I missed it!
As for Capitalism being bad, that's claptrap. Capitalists make their money by
pleasing their customers. If you piss off your customers they stop patronizing
your business and you lose whatever revenue they would have provided.
You know where that isn't true? When a company has a government-mandated (or
protected) monopoly as in electric utilities. Then there isn't any competition
to keep the business honest; the customer can't go someplace else.
Unfortunately for your argument, that isn't 'capitalism', it's 'mercantilism'.
The other distinguishing characteristics of a Mercantilist policy are subsidies
and protective tariffs. So we have subsidies for our farmers and protective
tariffs for our steel producers but since they're not government-mandated (or
protected) monopolies you think that's still 'capitalism'. It's not. If Farmer
Brown ticks you off and you go to Farmer Jones, Farmer Brown is not going
belly-up; our benevolent government will instead tax you to provide adequate
subsidies so Farmer Brown can keep on farming. In a rational world, he'd go out
of business and Farmer Jones would buy his property at 15 cents on the dollar.
Apply this to the airlines: we're told that the airlines need to be subsidized
so they don't go bankrupt. Why? Does Congress think all those planes will
evaporate if United closes its doors? We all know that the only thing that will
happen is that United execs will be unemployed and United stockholders will take
a beating. The planes will still fly but with a new Delta paint-job and they'll
be maintained by ex-United employees in Delta uniforms.
Ah, capitalism at work :-)
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>There's a law against being greedy? I missed it!
There is a minimum wage for one thing.
>
>As for Capitalism being bad, that's claptrap. Capitalists make their money by
>pleasing their customers. If you piss off your customers they stop patronizing
>your business and you lose whatever revenue they would have provided.
"Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
inferior work and product. But, isn't the hue and cry for governmental
regulation the mechanism that the public demands when they've been
ripped-off by nefarious business people? In many cases, especially
with bigger ticket items, they don't have the luxury of not doing
business with a sinister plutocrat, but must buy and weep over shoddy
business practices...
"Surely, we've seen enough charlatans to
know that the market itself cannot monitor its own activities to the
good of all!"
D. Stephen Heersink
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
>
>You know where that isn't true? When a company has a government-mandated (or
>protected) monopoly as in electric utilities. Then there isn't any competition
>to keep the business honest; the customer can't go someplace else.
>Unfortunately for your argument, that isn't 'capitalism', it's 'mercantilism'.
>The other distinguishing characteristics of a Mercantilist policy are subsidies
>and protective tariffs. So we have subsidies for our farmers and protective
>tariffs for our steel producers but since they're not government-mandated (or
>protected) monopolies you think that's still 'capitalism'. It's not. If Farmer
>Brown ticks you off and you go to Farmer Jones, Farmer Brown is not going
>belly-up; our benevolent government will instead tax you to provide adequate
>subsidies so Farmer Brown can keep on farming. In a rational world, he'd go out
>of business and Farmer Jones would buy his property at 15 cents on the dollar.
>
>Apply this to the airlines: we're told that the airlines need to be subsidized
>so they don't go bankrupt. Why? Does Congress think all those planes will
>evaporate if United closes its doors? We all know that the only thing that will
>happen is that United execs will be unemployed and United stockholders will take
>a beating. The planes will still fly but with a new Delta paint-job and they'll
>be maintained by ex-United employees in Delta uniforms.
>
>Ah, capitalism at work :-)
>
>
>(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Rico X. Partay
news:0pmmr0dl7bvi7a9ab...@4ax.com...
> Capitalists make their money by
> pleasing their customers. If you
> piss off your customers they stop
> patronizing your business and you
> lose whatever revenue they would
> have provided.
If only it were that simple.
Everyone tries to please their customers, others things being
equal.
But other things aren't equal. Not even close.
The ones that win the competition are often the ones that do
the most of what's called "externalizing costs." You could look it
up.
Rico X. Partay
news:0pmmr0dl7bvi7a9ab...@4ax.com...
> Capitalists make their money by
> pleasing their customers. If you
> piss off your customers they stop
> patronizing your business and you
> lose whatever revenue they would
> have provided.
Frank Clarke
<24cnr01lv0221k42i...@4ax.com>
>"Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
>they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
>inferior work and product. But, isn't the hue and cry for governmental
>regulation the mechanism that the public demands when they've been
>ripped-off by nefarious business people? In many cases, especially
>with bigger ticket items, they don't have the luxury of not doing
>business with a sinister plutocrat, but must buy and weep over shoddy
>business practices...
>
> "Surely, we've seen enough charlatans to
>know that the market itself cannot monitor its own activities to the
>good of all!"
I don't know about that. The "market" put Enron out of business before the
government got around to having hearings. If it hadn't been for market action,
you'd now be taxed to make sure Enron could continue supplying energy to
California. As far as I'm concerned, it's good that Enron is OOB and its execs
can't find decent jobs anywhere.
Then there's good ol' Standard Oil: John D had managed to cut the price of home
heating oil to record lows (while simultaneously making it too unprofitable for
anyone to compete with him) by 1915 when the government stepped in to squash his
vicious monopoly. By 1928 they (the regulators) had managed to drive prices
back up to where they should have been -- about 1500% higher. Thank God we have
the government to protect us from people like the Rockefellers!
jedi
fraud on the public, milking millions for Californians, shareholders and
their own workers (depriving them of money put into retirement) without any
consequences to the top executives and quite painful ones to everyone else.
Enron is a fine example of the worse that can happen from no checks and
balances on a company that serves the public and the public good.
Frank Clarke
<f24vd.224$yG7...@fe08.lga>
>It was because of deregulation that Enron was able to essentially perpetrate
>fraud on the public, milking millions for Californians, shareholders and
>their own workers (depriving them of money put into retirement) without any
>consequences to the top executives and quite painful ones to everyone else.
>Enron is a fine example of the worse that can happen from no checks and
>balances on a company that serves the public and the public good.
There was no fraud in its dealings with California, so don't lump CA in with the
employees and stockholders that got ripped off by Enron's execs. Enron offered
energy assets it owned to CA at elevated prices and CA agreed. Nobody held a
gun to California's head -- but because the idiots living in that state are so
intent on living without power plants in their backyards they were desperately
in need of external energy. That's not Enron's fault; that's California's
fault.
Because of Enron's shady dealings relating to derivatives they were fraudulently
misrepresenting their financial position as being much better than it was. When
the market found out, Enron collapsed (essentially) overnight. THEN the SEC
woke up. No checks and balances? What do you think the SEC does?
Let me rephrase that. What do you think the SEC is supposed to do?
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I don't know about that. The "market" put Enron out of business before the
>government got around to having hearings. If it hadn't been for market action,
>you'd now be taxed to make sure Enron could continue supplying energy to
>California. As far as I'm concerned, it's good that Enron is OOB and its execs
>can't find decent jobs anywhere.
>
>Then there's good ol' Standard Oil: John D had managed to cut the price of home
>heating oil to record lows (while simultaneously making it too unprofitable for
>anyone to compete with him) by 1915 when the government stepped in to squash his
>vicious monopoly. By 1928 they (the regulators) had managed to drive prices
>back up to where they should have been -- about 1500% higher. Thank God we have
>the government to protect us from people like the Rockefellers!
>
First you suggest that there should not have been any government
hearings on Enron. Then you say the government was incompetent
regarding standard oil.
A couple of items like that is no proof that we should not have any
laws.
"Must I remind you that the FDA is the outgrowth of the "Pure Food and
Drug
Act," which was the result of companies selling all kinds of tainted
food
and drugs! Left to their own accord, corporations will do anything
that
improves the bottom line."
Sparky
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Frank Clarke
<v4asr0pu0fpo623v9...@4ax.com>
>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:53:15 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>I don't know about that. The "market" put Enron out of business before the
>>government got around to having hearings. If it hadn't been for market action,
>>you'd now be taxed to make sure Enron could continue supplying energy to
>>California. As far as I'm concerned, it's good that Enron is OOB and its execs
>>can't find decent jobs anywhere.
>>
>>Then there's good ol' Standard Oil: John D had managed to cut the price of home
>>heating oil to record lows (while simultaneously making it too unprofitable for
>>anyone to compete with him) by 1915 when the government stepped in to squash his
>>vicious monopoly. By 1928 they (the regulators) had managed to drive prices
>>back up to where they should have been -- about 1500% higher. Thank God we have
>>the government to protect us from people like the Rockefellers!
>>
> First you suggest that there should not have been any government
>hearings on Enron. Then you say the government was incompetent
>regarding standard oil.
I did not suggest that (but I can support it ;-). You said the market was
ineffective at regulating itself; I pointed out that Enron was fully destroyed
by those "ineffective" market forces before the government could get off its fat
ass.
The government's incompetence regarding SO, on the other hand, is an established
fact. Their "trust busting" resulted in higher prices than SO had charged in
many years (and the trend was DOWN). Are you suggesting that higher prices for
home heating oil was a good thing?
> A couple of items like that is no proof that we should not have any
>laws.
>
>"Must I remind you that the FDA is the outgrowth of the "Pure Food and
>Drug
>Act," which was the result of companies selling all kinds of tainted
>food
>and drugs! Left to their own accord, corporations will do anything
>that
>improves the bottom line."
>
>Sparky
A couple of comments by Sparky is hardly what I would call "refutation". And
Ida Tarbell's literary output is filed alphabetically by author's last name for
a reason. Her muckraking exposes were (wait for it...) FICTION.
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> First you suggest that there should not have been any government
>>hearings on Enron. Then you say the government was incompetent
>>regarding standard oil.
>
>I did not suggest that (but I can support it ;-). You said the market was
>ineffective at regulating itself; I pointed out that Enron was fully destroyed
>by those "ineffective" market forces before the government could get off its fat
>ass.
If the government should have gotten off its fat ass, then Enron
must have broken some law. Laws are needed if we want things to be
good. There is a law that you can't turn back the odometer in a car
and then sell the car. There are laws that keep people from getting
ripped off when they buy houses.
>
>The government's incompetence regarding SO, on the other hand, is an established
>fact. Their "trust busting" resulted in higher prices than SO had charged in
>many years (and the trend was DOWN). Are you suggesting that higher prices for
>home heating oil was a good thing?
Higher prices are a bad thing.
>
>
>> A couple of items like that is no proof that we should not have any
>>laws.
>>
>>"Must I remind you that the FDA is the outgrowth of the "Pure Food and
>>Drug
>>Act," which was the result of companies selling all kinds of tainted
>>food
>>and drugs! Left to their own accord, corporations will do anything
>>that
>>improves the bottom line."
>>
>>Sparky
>
>A couple of comments by Sparky is hardly what I would call "refutation".
It is a refutation. Those who say we shouldn't have any laws are
proven wrong by only one law that important and good.
> And
>Ida Tarbell's literary output is filed alphabetically by author's last name for
>a reason. Her muckraking exposes were (wait for it...) FICTION.
>
>
I don't know who she was.
Frank Clarke
<md7vr01q4k1up3qp3...@4ax.com>
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:52:27 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> First you suggest that there should not have been any government
>>>hearings on Enron. Then you say the government was incompetent
>>>regarding standard oil.
>>
>>I did not suggest that (but I can support it ;-). You said the market was
>>ineffective at regulating itself; I pointed out that Enron was fully destroyed
>>by those "ineffective" market forces before the government could get off its fat
>>ass.
>
> If the government should have gotten off its fat ass, then Enron
>must have broken some law. Laws are needed if we want things to be
>good. There is a law that you can't turn back the odometer in a car
>and then sell the car. There are laws that keep people from getting
>ripped off when they buy houses.
...all of which are laws against fraud (which laws I applaud). Enron officers
clearly committed fraud and they should go to jail (after making restitution).
My point was that the SEC exists in order to catch stuff like this early -- but
they're not very good at it; the "ineffective market" is actually better, isn't
it? Before the SEC realized there was a problem, the "ineffective market" had
already bludgeoned Enron to death -- THAT'S what caused the SEC to sit up and
take notice.
So..... if the "ineffective market" does the SEC's job better than the SEC (and
does it for FREE!) why would anyone suggest we continue funding the SEC? Fire
the screw-ups!
>>The government's incompetence regarding SO, on the other hand, is an established
>>fact. Their "trust busting" resulted in higher prices than SO had charged in
>>many years (and the trend was DOWN). Are you suggesting that higher prices for
>>home heating oil was a good thing?
>
> Higher prices are a bad thing.
I'm -so- glad we could find a point of agreement. Now if I can get you to agree
that the trust-busters of the early 20th-century actually screwed up when they
busted StdOil...
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>...all of which are laws against fraud (which laws I applaud).
Suppose person A is dying of thirst in a desert. Person B offers
to sell person A one canteen of water in exchange for person A's
house, car, and all his money.
This is not fraud. But it is not good either. We need more laws
than just laws against fraud.
> Enron officers
>clearly committed fraud and they should go to jail (after making restitution).
>My point was that the SEC exists in order to catch stuff like this early -- but
>they're not very good at it; the "ineffective market" is actually better, isn't
>it? Before the SEC realized there was a problem, the "ineffective market" had
>already bludgeoned Enron to death -- THAT'S what caused the SEC to sit up and
>take notice.
>
>So..... if the "ineffective market" does the SEC's job better than the SEC (and
>does it for FREE!) why would anyone suggest we continue funding the SEC? Fire
>the screw-ups!
>
There is no fraud in the following but we should stop it anyway,
and the free market certainly would not stop it:
http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-5133261.html?tag=st_rn
More and more tech jobs head overseas
Last modified: December 24, 2003, 6:59 AM PST
By Reuters
U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
technology jobs to India, China and other low-cost centers, but they
are keeping quiet for fear of a backlash, industry professionals said.
Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India
will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict
as many as 2 million U.S. white-collar jobs such as those filled by
programmers, software engineers and applications designers will shift
to low- cost centers by 2014.
But the biggest companies looking to "offshoring" to cut costs, such
as Microsoft, IBM and AT&T Wireless, are reluctant to attract
attention for political reasons, observers said this week.
"The problem is that companies aren't sure if it's politically correct
to talk about it," said Jack Trout, a principal of Trout & Partners, a
marketing and strategy firm. "Nobody has come up with a way to spin it
in a positive way."
This causes a problem for publicly traded companies, which would
ordinarily brag about cost savings to investors. Instead, they send
vague signals that they are opening up operations in India and China,
but often decline to elaborate.
Moreover, on the threshold of a U.S. presidential election year, job
losses are a hot-button issue. A company that highlighted a major job
transfer could wind up in the campaign debate.
Multinationals find that when they trumpet expansion overseas, they
cause problems at home. When Accenture executives in India this month
announced plans to double their staff to 10,000 next year, they
triggered a flood of calls to the company's U.S. offices about U.S.
job losses.
Offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and selling at U.S.
prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the U.S. Business and Industrial
Council, a trade group for small business. "They're not creating
better living standards for America."...
>>
>> Higher prices are a bad thing.
>
>I'm -so- glad we could find a point of agreement. Now if I can get you to agree
>that the trust-busters of the early 20th-century actually screwed up when they
>busted StdOil...
>
Maybe they did screw up.
We should make things good for people. Capitalism results in the
few very rich and the many very poor. There may not be fraud in it,
but since that is the result we don't need it.
Frank Clarke
<8ko1s0p5994r6hh16...@4ax.com>
>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:18:57 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>...all of which are laws against fraud (which laws I applaud).
>
> Suppose person A is dying of thirst in a desert. Person B offers
>to sell person A one canteen of water in exchange for person A's
>house, car, and all his money.
>
> This is not fraud. But it is not good either. We need more laws
>than just laws against fraud.
Ah.... you want a law to take away B's water because someone else needs it more
than he does... I see. Who made this determination? What if they determine
that I need your liver more than you do?
(See? You come up with ridiculous scenarios and I can top them with even
more-ridiclous scenarios. Let's stop this and act like people who live in the
real world, OK?)
>>So..... if the "ineffective market" does the SEC's job better than the SEC (and
>>does it for FREE!) why would anyone suggest we continue funding the SEC? Fire
>>the screw-ups!
>>
> There is no fraud in the following but we should stop it anyway,
>and the free market certainly would not stop it:
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-5133261.html?tag=st_rn
>
>More and more tech jobs head overseas
>Last modified: December 24, 2003, 6:59 AM PST
>By Reuters
>
>
>U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
>technology jobs to ...
Why should the free market stop it? Do Americans have some divine right to keep
certain jobs for themselves even if someone else needs them more ;-) and
demonstrates that by offering to do the work for lower wages?
What happens when a job goes overseas to be done by lower-paid workers? Yes,
some American loses that job, but there's an element of justice in that: the job
clearly wasn't worth what was being paid to get it done -- the American worker
was ripping off his employer by charging more than the job was worth.
Something else happens, too: the good or service produced by that job can now be
offered to the consumer at a lower price because it now costs less to provide
it. So, yes, some worker lost, but the consumer wins. As they say: you can't
make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
So an American worker no longer gets to make expensive widgets. Can that person
not find other employment? Losing a job isn't the end of the world. And nobody
owes anybody "a living".
>>> Higher prices are a bad thing.
>>
>>I'm -so- glad we could find a point of agreement. Now if I can get you to agree
>>that the trust-busters of the early 20th-century actually screwed up when they
>>busted StdOil...
>>
> Maybe they did screw up.
>
> We should make things good for people. Capitalism results in the
>few very rich and the many very poor. There may not be fraud in it,
>but since that is the result we don't need it.
Are you asleep? We just finished going over the tale of Standard Oil, A Very
Capitalist Enterprise, which indeed made John D Rockefeller very rich, but also
supplied Very Inexpensive And Very Necessary home heating oil. Those two things
are inextricably linked -- that was covered in trimmed text -- such that you
can't have one without the other.
If you could do away with both of those, would you? If you answer "yes", you
condemn a generation to death by hypothermia; if you answer "no", stop bitching
about Capitalists making money.
Rico X. Partay
> ...the tale of Standard Oil, A Very
> Capitalist Enterprise, which ... supplied
> Very Inexpensive And Very Necessary home
> heating oil. Those two things are
> inextricably linked -- that was covered
> in trimmed text -- such that you can't
> have one without the other.
If you're saying that we can't have inexpensive heating oil
without oil companies being free to practice predatory pricing and
violate our antitrust laws... you're nuts.
> ....stop bitching
> about Capitalists making money.
If you can't tell the difference between "Capitalists making
money" and outright cheating, then you're not very bright.
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<41c23880$0$9144$8126...@news.nntpaccess.com>
>"Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:hh64s01r5vnm2kmjk...@4ax.com...
>
>> ...the tale of Standard Oil, A Very
>> Capitalist Enterprise, which ... supplied
>> Very Inexpensive And Very Necessary home
>> heating oil. Those two things are
>> inextricably linked -- that was covered
>> in trimmed text -- such that you can't
>> have one without the other.
>
> If you're saying that we can't have inexpensive heating oil
>without oil companies being free to practice predatory pricing and
>violate our antitrust laws... you're nuts.
You may have missed the earlier posts. I hope you can take the time to go back
and review them. To summarize: JDR's StdOil sold home heating oil at such low
prices (hardly "predatory pricing") that no one could profitably compete -- thus
they had an unassailable monopoly.
If Rockefeller had let prices rise to "predatory" levels it would have drawn
competition into the market. He didn't want that, so he kept prices LOW (got
it? --LOW--) in order to keep out competition. Thus, he made a fraction of a
cent per gallon, but sold billions of gallons. Do the math.
Those "antitrust laws" when applied to StdOil turned the clock back 25 years in
just 13 years and resulted in a 1500% rise in consumer prices for home heating
oil, which (I presume) you think is just ducky.
Now.... who's nuts?
>> ....stop bitching
>> about Capitalists making money.
>
> If you can't tell the difference between "Capitalists making
>money" and outright cheating, then you're not very bright.
Possibly you will be able to take the time to explain how StdOil "cheated"? I'm
still a little fuzzy on the concept ;-)
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Suppose person A is dying of thirst in a desert. Person B offers
>>to sell person A one canteen of water in exchange for person A's
>>house, car, and all his money.
>>
>> This is not fraud. But it is not good either. We need more laws
>>than just laws against fraud.
>
>Ah.... you want a law to take away B's water because someone else needs it more
>than he does... I see. Who made this determination?
I did, but B should be paid for the water.
> What if they determine
>that I need your liver more than you do?
They are not good, I am.
>
>(See? You come up with ridiculous scenarios and I can top them with even
>more-ridiclous scenarios. Let's stop this and act like people who live in the
>real world, OK?)
A real world example is the companies making billions while they
lay off Americans and hire people in Mexico and China for near
starvation level wages.
>
>Why should the free market stop it?
It wouldn't, the government should stop it.
> Do Americans have some divine right to keep
>certain jobs for themselves even if someone else needs them more ;-) and
>demonstrates that by offering to do the work for lower wages?
Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor and
needs to be replaced.
>
>What happens when a job goes overseas to be done by lower-paid workers? Yes,
>some American loses that job, but there's an element of justice in that: the job
>clearly wasn't worth what was being paid to get it done -- the American worker
>was ripping off his employer by charging more than the job was worth.
It's true that Capitalism is "fair". Consider the guy who invented
the car and all the millions of people who benefit from that who don't
know the first thing mechanics. In America something like 2% of the
people have 95% of the wealth or whatever. I forget the actual
figures. Some of this was dishonest, but much of it was from producing
things, like microsoft software.
People who start businesses and create things are in fact superior
In all fairness there should be the few very rich and the many very
poor and that is what capitalism produces. But here is the point -
what good does it do them to have billions of dollars? What more can
they own or do, than if they merely had millions of dollars? Compare
that to the difference between having enough to afford shelter and
being out in the street. The guy who invented the car did a lot to
make things better for people. Replacing capitalism would also make
things better for people.
Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy. They say a person can
take their job for $5 an hour or they will find someone else to take
the job. It doesn't matter if they are making billions of dollars.
It's all perfectly fair in their minds. And they are totally against
"big government" doing anything to stop them. We can put an end to
their pathetic ideas without having any nonsense ideas like Communism.
Obviously we should have private property. And viewing business
leaders as enemies is also ridiculous. But capitalism is a horrible
idea and should go as extinct as the dinosaurs. In the future we have
should advanced economics designed to make things good for people.
>
>Something else happens, too: the good or service produced by that job can now be
>offered to the consumer at a lower price because it now costs less to provide
>it. So, yes, some worker lost, but the consumer wins. As they say: you can't
>make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
You could also say that if you chop of the workers feet they are
better off because now they don't have to spend money on shoes.
But it doesn't compare to having the feet, or having the job.
>
>So an American worker no longer gets to make expensive widgets. Can that person
>not find other employment? Losing a job isn't the end of the world. And nobody
>owes anybody "a living".
>
Americans should not vote for someone like you.
>
>Are you asleep? We just finished going over the tale of Standard Oil, A Very
>Capitalist Enterprise, which indeed made John D Rockefeller very rich, but also
>supplied Very Inexpensive And Very Necessary home heating oil. Those two things
>are inextricably linked -- that was covered in trimmed text -- such that you
>can't have one without the other.
The problem is not that Rockeffeller is very rich. A problem would
arise if other people were very poor. And we don't have to have that.
We should have free enterprise, but we should also have laws against
greed.
>
>If you could do away with both of those, would you? If you answer "yes", you
>condemn a generation to death by hypothermia; if you answer "no", stop bitching
>about Capitalists making money.
>
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.
Rico X. Partay
> Possibly you will be able to take the
> time to explain how StdOil "cheated"? I'm
> still a little fuzzy on the concept ;-)
Boy, that's an understatement. You don't know what "predatory
pricing" means, and you've got a bollixed understanding of
American corporate history. Good luck.
Frank Clarke
<bsh4s0dqp4vemvopi...@4ax.com>
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:43:20 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> Suppose person A is dying of thirst in a desert. Person B offers
>>>to sell person A one canteen of water in exchange for person A's
>>>house, car, and all his money.
>>>
>>> This is not fraud. But it is not good either. We need more laws
>>>than just laws against fraud.
>>
>>Ah.... you want a law to take away B's water because someone else needs it more
>>than he does... I see. Who made this determination?
>
> I did, but B should be paid for the water.
How much? Obviously not the total of A's house, car, and money or you would
have stepped out of the way of that transaction. Instead, you insist that SOME
OTHER AGENCY should set the price. Which other agency? How do they determine
what's 'fair'? Since it's B's water that's being sold, shouldn't B have some
say in the matter?
You're promoting socialism. Let me tell you the low-down on that: The Soviet
Union ran "The Great Socialist Experiment" for 75+ years in near-laboratory
conditions and in the end they all went out dirty, wet, cold, and hungry.
Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works.
>>(See? You come up with ridiculous scenarios and I can top them with even
>>more-ridiclous scenarios. Let's stop this and act like people who live in the
>>real world, OK?)
>
> A real world example is the companies making billions while they
>lay off Americans and hire people in Mexico and China for near
>starvation level wages.
How interesting! These people could have stayed on the farm living their
bucolic, healthy rural lifestyle yet they chose to move to the big city and get
scammed by some Gringo thief. Whatever were they thinking?
Here's what they were thinking: the farm has failed, the cow is dead, and the
whole family is about to starve; their annual income is near-zero. In the city
they can get jobs sewing blouses for 70 centavos an hour. This is WAY MORE than
they could make hawking pinwheels on the street corner and it's WAY SAFER than
prostitution. Your solution is to ban that Gringo thief from employing any
peasants and leave them only prostitution and street-vending as alternatives.
How did you get to be such a nice guy?
Frank Clarke
<bsh4s0dqp4vemvopi...@4ax.com>
>
>>Why should the free market stop it?
>
> It wouldn't, the government should stop it.
I don't suppose you could answer the question one of these times, huh?
>> Do Americans have some divine right to keep
>>certain jobs for themselves even if someone else needs them more ;-) and
>>demonstrates that by offering to do the work for lower wages?
>
> Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor and
>needs to be replaced.
With what? Socialism? The Soviet Union ran "The Great Socialist Experiment"
for 75+ years in near-laboratory conditions and in the end they all went out
dirty, wet, cold, and hungry.
Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works.
>>What happens when a job goes overseas to be done by lower-paid workers? Yes,
>>some American loses that job, but there's an element of justice in that: the job
>>clearly wasn't worth what was being paid to get it done -- the American worker
>>was ripping off his employer by charging more than the job was worth.
>
> It's true that Capitalism is "fair".
So.... you would like to replace this with an unfair system? Nice guy. What's
your motto? "F*** everybody except me"?
> People who start businesses and create things are in fact superior
>In all fairness there should be the few very rich and the many very
>poor and that is what capitalism produces. But here is the point -
>what good does it do them to have billions of dollars? What more can
>they own or do, than if they merely had millions of dollars? Compare
>that to the difference between having enough to afford shelter and
>being out in the street. The guy who invented the car did a lot to
>make things better for people. Replacing capitalism would also make
>things better for people.
Bill Gates is a stand-out charitable donor. Go Google "Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation". That, however, isn't the point. The point is that Bill Gates made
all of his money by making people happy: he made his workers happy every payday
and he made his customers happy everytime the fired up their PCs.
Do you really want to end all that?
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<41c31ad0$0$4742$8126...@news.nntpaccess.com>
Oooh! Nice side-step. Do you cha-cha too?
Frank Clarke
<bsh4s0dqp4vemvopi...@4ax.com>
>
>>Something else happens, too: the good or service produced by that job can now be
>>offered to the consumer at a lower price because it now costs less to provide
>>it. So, yes, some worker lost, but the consumer wins. As they say: you can't
>>make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
>
> You could also say that if you chop of the workers feet they are
>better off because now they don't have to spend money on shoes.
>But it doesn't compare to having the feet, or having the job.
I missed the connection there. I suspect you did too.
>>So an American worker no longer gets to make expensive widgets. Can that person
>>not find other employment? Losing a job isn't the end of the world. And nobody
>>owes anybody "a living".
>>
> Americans should not vote for someone like you.
Right. Far better to vote for someone who whispers soothing words in your ear:
"It's not your fault, Topaz. Just because you let your skills get rusty and
your labor became less valuable, you shouldn't blame yourself for your job being
outsourced. It's all the fault of those damn Filipino scavengers who'll work
for half what you demand."
Facts don't cease to be facts just because they're not palatable. Grow up.
Frank Clarke
<bsh4s0dqp4vemvopi...@4ax.com>
>
>>Are you asleep? We just finished going over the tale of Standard Oil, A Very
>>Capitalist Enterprise, which indeed made John D Rockefeller very rich, but also
>>supplied Very Inexpensive And Very Necessary home heating oil. Those two things
>>are inextricably linked -- that was covered in trimmed text -- such that you
>>can't have one without the other.
>
> The problem is not that Rockeffeller is very rich. A problem would
>arise if other people were very poor. And we don't have to have that.
>We should have free enterprise, but we should also have laws against
>greed.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. The poor aren't poor because somebody else is
rich. And, yes, we DO have to have both rich and poor people if we are to have
a free society. In any society where people are free to pursue their own
inclinations and dreams, you will have some over-achievers and some
under-achievers. The over-achievers will inevitably grow rich; the
under-achievers will inevitably grow poor. The only way to avoid this is forced
equality at the point of a bayonet, the socialist model.
>>If you could do away with both of those, would you? If you answer "yes", you
>>condemn a generation to death by hypothermia; if you answer "no", stop bitching
>>about Capitalists making money.
A difficult question and (obviously) one you did not wish to address.
Considering what follows, I don't blame you.
> 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
>they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
>
> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
>will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
>compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
>the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
>its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
>sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated.
You misunderstand supply-and-demand; it is no more possible to thwart TLOSAD
than to thwart the law of gravity or to move faster than light. It would be
more realistic to pass a law forbidding hurricanes.
> 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?
Capital and ingenuity are as subject to TLOSAD just as anything else. If you
cap the price for either as by limiting the potential rewards you will drive
those assets somewhere else. Where would you like to send them? (Hey! There's
another question you can avoid answering!)
> 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.
Nobody's laughing. With the advent of nanotechnology, we can already see this
kind of world heading straight for us. Yes, you're right, we need to get this
figured out. We already know that socialism and central planning isn't the way
to go.
> 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.
I think... no, I'm sure... you misunderstand the notion of "selfishness" in the
Randian sense. That kind of selfishness insists that what's mine should not be
taken by force or by force of law. What I do with it is my own business. And
to cap it all (was that a pun?) you suppose that charity would disappear. I'm
sure you're wrong. Here's why:
In one week following 9-11-2001 the Red Cross received 1.5 Billion (with a B)
dollars in unsolicited donations. This is a number which is larger than the
annual budget of some European countries and some of our own states. Charity
disappear? Fugeddaboudit.
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>How much?
A normal person would just give the water to someone that thirsty.
If a capitalist demands his profit we could give him ten dollars.
> Obviously not the total of A's house, car, and money or you would
>have stepped out of the way of that transaction. Instead, you insist that SOME
>OTHER AGENCY should set the price. Which other agency? How do they determine
>what's 'fair'? Since it's B's water that's being sold, shouldn't B have some
>say in the matter?
Lets start over if you are going to be that way. Person A is dying
of thirst in a desert. Person B has plenty of water. He lands his jet
near Person A to make a huge profit out of situation.
>
>You're promoting socialism. Let me tell you the low-down on that: The Soviet
>Union ran
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
Communism.
The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
> "The Great Socialist Experiment" for 75+ years in near-laboratory
>conditions and in the end they all went out dirty, wet, cold, and hungry.
>
>Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works.
Communism doesn't work. Capitalism works but results in the few
very rich and the many very poor. Socialism works without the defect.
>>
>> A real world example is the companies making billions while they
>>lay off Americans and hire people in Mexico and China for near
>>starvation level wages.
>
>How interesting! These people could have stayed on the farm living their
>bucolic, healthy rural lifestyle yet they chose to move to the big city and get
>scammed by some Gringo thief. Whatever were they thinking?
>
>Here's what they were thinking: the farm has failed, the cow is dead, and the
>whole family is about to starve; their annual income is near-zero. In the city
>they can get jobs sewing blouses for 70 centavos an hour. This is WAY MORE than
>they could make hawking pinwheels on the street corner and it's WAY SAFER than
>prostitution. Your solution is to ban that Gringo thief from employing any
>peasants and leave them only prostitution and street-vending as alternatives.
>
>How did you get to be such a nice guy?
>
Mexico and China should try to come up to our level if they can. We
should not go down to their level, which is what Capitalism is doing.
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:42:27 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><bsh4s0dqp4vemvopi...@4ax.com>
>
>>
>>>Something else happens, too: the good or service produced by that job can now be
>>>offered to the consumer at a lower price because it now costs less to provide
>>>it. So, yes, some worker lost, but the consumer wins. As they say: you can't
>>>make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
>>
>> You could also say that if you chop of the workers feet they are
>>better off because now they don't have to spend money on shoes.
>>But it doesn't compare to having the feet, or having the job.
>
>I missed the connection there. I suspect you did too.
Capitalism is not good. It results in the few very rich and the many
very poor.
>
>>>So an American worker no longer gets to make expensive widgets. Can that person
>>>not find other employment? Losing a job isn't the end of the world. And nobody
>>>owes anybody "a living".
>>>
>> Americans should not vote for someone like you.
>
>Right. Far better to vote for someone who whispers soothing words in your ear:
>"It's not your fault, Topaz. Just because you let your skills get rusty and
>your labor became less valuable, you shouldn't blame yourself for your job being
>outsourced. It's all the fault of those damn Filipino scavengers who'll work
>for half what you demand."
>
>Facts don't cease to be facts just because they're not palatable. Grow up.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:42:27 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><bsh4s0dqp4vemvopi...@4ax.com>
>
>>
>>>Why should the free market stop it?
>>
>> It wouldn't, the government should stop it.
>
>I don't suppose you could answer the question one of these times, huh?
It should be stopped because it is bad. We need more than the "free
market" if things are to be good.
>> Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor and
>>needs to be replaced.
>
>With what?
National Socialism.
>Socialism? The Soviet Union ran "The Great Socialist Experiment"
>for 75+ years in near-laboratory conditions and in the end they all went out
>dirty, wet, cold, and hungry.
>
>Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works.
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
Communism.
The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
>
>So.... you would like to replace this with an unfair system? Nice guy. What's
>your motto? "F*** everybody except me"?
We should replace it with a system that does not result in the few
very rich and the many very poor.
>
>Bill Gates is a stand-out charitable donor. Go Google "Bill and Melinda Gates
>Foundation". That, however, isn't the point. The point is that Bill Gates made
>all of his money by making people happy: he made his workers happy every payday
>and he made his customers happy everytime the fired up their PCs.
>
>Do you really want to end all that?
>
This is what we should end:
http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-5133261.html?tag=st_rn
More and more tech jobs head overseas
Last modified: December 24, 2003, 6:59 AM PST
By Reuters
U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Economics is not a zero-sum game. The poor aren't poor because somebody else is
>rich. And, yes, we DO have to have both rich and poor people if we are to have
It's true that some people should be richer than most other people.
The inventors and leaders of industry are the few that create things
for the many. I would not want to confuse the issue by bringing the
bankers and other parasites into it. But there are the few who
invented airplanes and computers and there are those who build the
factories to produce them. Those people should of course be rewarded
and more people should have the incentive to be like them.
The problem with capitalism though is about the money. What do
people do with billions of dollars? They couldn't spend it if they
bought a new house every day. The difference in happiness between
someone with one billion and someone with ten billion is negligible.
But the difference in happiness between someone who has enough to live
on and someone who does not is great. We should have a system that
spreads the money out more evenly than just going by capitalism.
>a free society. In any society where people are free to pursue their own
>inclinations and dreams, you will have some over-achievers and some
>under-achievers. The over-achievers will inevitably grow rich; the
>under-achievers will inevitably grow poor. The only way to avoid this is forced
>equality at the point of a bayonet, the socialist model.
It would be a big mistake to force equality or even to believe in
equality. But everyone in a nation who is willing to work should have
a decent life. Everyone needs that much and no one needs billions of
dollars. We should do something about that. If capitalists don't like
that then what kind of people are they? Henry Ford was not that way.
He paid his workers much more than he needed to. If they were all like
Henry Ford we wouldn't need any laws. But capitalists are taught that
they should try to get the maximum profit that they can.
>
>>>If you could do away with both of those, would you? If you answer "yes", you
>>>condemn a generation to death by hypothermia; if you answer "no", stop bitching
>>>about Capitalists making money.
>
>A difficult question and (obviously) one you did not wish to address.
>Considering what follows, I don't blame you.
You try to win arguements by asking yes or no questions.
Did you stop beating your wife? Your play on words does not address
the issues.. "If you could do away with both of those would you" As if
there are no other options.
>
>You misunderstand supply-and-demand; it is no more possible to thwart TLOSAD
>than to thwart the law of gravity or to move faster than light. It would be
>more realistic to pass a law forbidding hurricanes.
The height of materialism is to have no bias in favor of people over
things. The law of supply and demand does not have that bias.
Maybe we can't stop hurricanes, at least not today. But we can stop
greed.
>
>Capital and ingenuity are as subject to TLOSAD just as anything else. If you
>cap the price for either as by limiting the potential rewards you will drive
>those assets somewhere else. Where would you like to send them? (Hey! There's
>another question you can avoid answering!)
You pretend that millions of dollars is not incentive enough and
only billions will do. I am for having plenty of incentive. But
having only TLOSAD results in the few very rich and the very poor. We
should not have that.
>
>> 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.
>
>Nobody's laughing. With the advent of nanotechnology, we can already see this
>kind of world heading straight for us. Yes, you're right, we need to get this
>figured out. We already know that socialism and central planning isn't the way
>to go.
Socialism is the way to go, central planning is not.
How about this idea? We stop using the word "socialism" since we
don't agree on what it means! Either that or we could ask each other
what we think it means but probably we would never agree.
>
>I think... no, I'm sure... you misunderstand the notion of "selfishness" in the
>Randian sense. That kind of selfishness insists that what's mine should not be
>taken by force or by force of law.
If what you have is two parchutes and we are on a plane doing a nose
dive then I am taking one of them by force if necessary. I would not
be the bad guy in that situation.
Here is a more ordinary example. Someone doesn't want to pay taxes,
but he is protected because there are police and he gets to drive on
pave roads that the taxes pay for.
The point is that generally it is bad to take things away from
people. But that is not the highest law. Sometimes there are higher
laws that trump that one.
> What I do with it is my own business. And
>to cap it all (was that a pun?) you suppose that charity would disappear. I'm
>sure you're wrong. Here's why:
>
>In one week following 9-11-2001 the Red Cross received 1.5 Billion (with a B)
>dollars in unsolicited donations. This is a number which is larger than the
>annual budget of some European countries and some of our own states. Charity
>disappear? Fugeddaboudit.
So you say some people should not have to pay one dime to help the
needy because other people will be charitable. I would not allow
someone to take advantage of generous people that way.
Frank Clarke
<pd67s05lt1fecqemk...@4ax.com>
>>Here's what they were thinking: the farm has failed, the cow is dead, and the
>>whole family is about to starve; their annual income is near-zero. In the city
>>they can get jobs sewing blouses for 70 centavos an hour. This is WAY MORE than
>>they could make hawking pinwheels on the street corner and it's WAY SAFER than
>>prostitution. Your solution is to ban that Gringo thief from employing any
>>peasants and leave them only prostitution and street-vending as alternatives.
>>
>>How did you get to be such a nice guy?
>>
> Mexico and China should try to come up to our level if they can. We
>should not go down to their level, which is what Capitalism is doing.
Oddly, I can't seem to pull "solution" out of your reply....
Frank Clarke
<nb77s01e40224vnj9...@4ax.com>
>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:43:15 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:42:27 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>><bsh4s0dqp4vemvopi...@4ax.com>
>>
>>>>Why should the free market stop it?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't, the government should stop it.
>>
>>I don't suppose you could answer the question one of these times, huh?
>
> It should be stopped because it is bad. We need more than the "free
>market" if things are to be good.
We must make our choices from among the achievable and practical. When we
choose something impossible to achieve we wind up disappointed, but that
disappointment is -NOT- accidental. After the example of central planners
disemboweling StdOil and causing oil prices to rise 1500% you still think
government might be a solution?
>>> Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor and
>>>needs to be replaced.
>>
>>With what?
>
> National Socialism.
Good plan... not! Possibly you may have heard of the National Socialist German
Workers' Party (NSDAP)? Yes, that's right, the one that went by a nickname
derived from the first 4 letters of the German word for 'national'.
If that's the best you can do, this thread is over.
>>Socialism? The Soviet Union ran "The Great Socialist Experiment"
>>for 75+ years in near-laboratory conditions and in the end they all went out
>>dirty, wet, cold, and hungry.
>>
>>Socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works.
>
> When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
>their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
>
> When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
>might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
>call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
>Communism.
>
> The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
I highly recommend for your reading list "The Road To Serfdom" by F A Hayek.
Among other things, it will disabuse you of the notion that Communism, Fascism,
Naziism, and most of the other collectivist -isms are -different- things. They
are not; they are simply different cuts of the same gemstone. They all look
pretty (or ugly) depending on our particular viewpoint, but they're all,
underneath, the same thing.
>>So.... you would like to replace this with an unfair system? Nice guy. What's
>>your motto? "F*** everybody except me"?
>
> We should replace it with a system that does not result in the few
>very rich and the many very poor.
You can't have that and freedom, because in a free society people's natural
inequalities will separate them into rich and poor over time. The only way to
have equality is for us all to become slaves to the system. Whether you call
that Fascism, Communism, Naziism, or something else entirely, our experience
tells us that down that path is death. By all means, take a walk; I'm not going
of my own volition... but that's OK with you, isn't it? You're ready to force
us all to take that trip to the Gulag once more.
>>Bill Gates is a stand-out charitable donor. Go Google "Bill and Melinda Gates
>>Foundation". That, however, isn't the point. The point is that Bill Gates made
>>all of his money by making people happy: he made his workers happy every payday
>>and he made his customers happy everytime the fired up their PCs.
>>
>>Do you really want to end all that?
>>
> This is what we should end:
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-5133261.html?tag=st_rn
>Offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and selling at U.S.
>prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the U.S. Business and Industrial
>Council, a trade group for small business. "They're not creating
>better living standards for America."...
Of course they are; they're just not creating it for everyone. The consumer
benefits from this, and the displaced workers benefit when they upgrade their
skills and get a better job. The alternative is that American consumers pay
higher prices to keep some of their lazier countrymen employed.
As an aside, I just went over to natvan.com to find out what it is. Here's what
it is: it's the National Alliance, which morphed out of the American Nazi Party.
Looks like I pegged you right!
Frank Clarke
<kd77s0tm29srai8mq...@4ax.com>
Nazi alert....
Frank Clarke
<knb7s0t11tg6q3m91...@4ax.com>
>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:11:56 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Economics is not a zero-sum game. The poor aren't poor because somebody else is
>>rich. And, yes, we DO have to have both rich and poor people if we are to have
> The problem with capitalism though is about the money. What do
>people do with billions of dollars? They couldn't spend it if they
>bought a new house every day.
So what? What Bill Gates does (or doesn't) with his money is no concern of
mine (or yours, for that matter). In fact, I would like it if he converted all
his assets to greenbacks and stuffed them into his mattress. That would make
the amount of cash in circulation less and each circulating dollar would thus
become more valuable. The same thing would happen if he simply incinerated his
money.
Well, suppose he puts it into a bank? That money becomes available for loans;
since there's lot's of it the price (of loans -- interest) falls and the economy
gets a boost. Prices fall because "things" are now cheaper.
Maybe he plows it back into R&D. In a few years we'll have $1.98 computers and
50-cent/month high-speed Internet connections. Then all your worries about
having to work for minimum wage will be for nothing.
You're focusing on the wrong thing, exactly what your handlers at the National
Alliance want you to do. They would much prefer you didn't do much in the way
of 'critical thinking' -- and you seem to be accomodating them.
>The difference in happiness between
>someone with one billion and someone with ten billion is negligible.
>But the difference in happiness between someone who has enough to live
>on and someone who does not is great. We should have a system that
>spreads the money out more evenly than just going by capitalism.
...and wno gets to define 'more evenly'? You? Me? The National Alliance?
>... But capitalists are taught that
>they should try to get the maximum profit that they can.
There is no course in college called "Squeezing Every Last Penny". On the other
hand, I don't know of any successful person who started out saying "I think I
should try to go bankrupt".
>>>>If you could do away with both of those, would you? If you answer "yes", you
>>>>condemn a generation to death by hypothermia; if you answer "no", stop bitching
>>>>about Capitalists making money.
> You try to win arguements by asking yes or no questions.
>Did you stop beating your wife? Your play on words does not address
>the issues.. "If you could do away with both of those would you" As if
>there are no other options.
In this case there are no other options. When you take away the rewards of
entrepreneurship, it goes away. You think you can have all the benfits of
capitalism without the conditions which allow capitalism to flourish. You need
to swap out those rose-colored lenses for clear.
>Maybe we can't stop hurricanes, at least not today. But we can stop
>greed.
OK! While you're at it, stamp out prejudice. You can start by stamping out
your own prejudice of 'parasitic bankers'. And then stamp out hate. That
requires you to destroy the National Alliance, but I have confidence in you ;-)
> How about this idea? We stop using the word "socialism" since we
>don't agree on what it means! Either that or we could ask each other
>what we think it means but probably we would never agree.
(From "A Road To Hell Paved With Good Intentions" -- Thomas Sowell retrospective
of F A Hayek's "Road To Serfdom"):
---------------------
THE UNDERLYING VISION
At the heart of the socialist vision is the notion that a compassionate society
can create more humane living conditions for all through government "planning"
and control of the economy. Both the moral and the efficiency arguments for
socialism depend crucially on what Hayek called "intellectual hubris"--the
assumption that we have such comprehensive knowledge that the only things
lacking are such subjective factors as compassion and will.
Socialists are "dangerous idealists," according to Hayek, including many people
"whose sincerity and disinterestedness are above suspicion" and individuals "of
considerable intellectual distinction." The denigration and demonizing of
political opponents, which has been an integral part of the vision of the left
for at least two centuries, was no part of Hayek's vision. Socialists to him
were people who overestimated what was possible and underestimated the dangers
created in pursuit of their ideals.
Socialists have "prepared the way for totalitarianism," according to Hayek,
though they are themselves morally incapable of doing the hideous things
necessary to make a totalitarian state work, and will draw back before following
the inescapable logic of their vision to its conclusion--leaving the field to
those whose ruthlessness is equal to the task. Thus he saw the rise of the
Nazis in Germany as the consequence of a prior socialist demolition of the ideas
and values which sustained free institutions, such as the rule of law and the
decentralization of political power and economic activity.
Once equality before the law--the application of the same rules to all--was
brushed aside as a mere sham, since "real" equality did not exist among the
various classes and groups subjected to that law, the path was paved for
subordinating law itself to "results." In pursuing this line of thought and
policy, the socialists had very different results in mind from those later
imposed by the Nazis. But they had opened the floodgates--and once you have
opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.
------------
Glub glub glub glub....
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Mexico and China should try to come up to our level if they can. We
>>should not go down to their level, which is what Capitalism is doing.
>
>Oddly, I can't seem to pull "solution" out of your reply....
>
In the USA there are many health and safety laws. There are also
overtime laws and so on. People in Mexico and China don't have those
benefits. Even without the main factor of the low wages in Mexico and
China, factories there could put factories here out of business
because they are more profitable to the capitalists.
The solution is that if businesses want to have their factories in
Mexico and China they can, they just can't sell any of their stuff in
the USA. Everything here should be made in the USA. Then there would
be plenty of jobs.
The USA should barter for anything it needs from other countries. We
could trade our cars for their bananas, coffee, minerals, and oil.
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>We must make our choices from among the achievable and practical. When we
>choose something impossible to achieve we wind up disappointed, but that
>disappointment is -NOT- accidental. After the example of central planners
>disemboweling StdOil and causing oil prices to rise 1500% you still think
>government might be a solution?
What the government does should benefit most people. According to
your example that was not done in that case. In no way does that prove
that the government shouldn't do anything.
>Good plan... not! Possibly you may have heard of the National Socialist German
>Workers' Party (NSDAP)? Yes, that's right, the one that went by a nickname
>derived from the first 4 letters of the German word for 'national'.
Douglas Reed wrote:
"Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the
English in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely
strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth - not in gold bars
in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift
and energy of the work people, the conditions of life they enjoy.
Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the
factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room,
recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is
needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social
conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind which you
lack."
About Douglas Reed:
"I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and
author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected
before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled
and completely forgotten person.
Why was he "forgotten"?
It was simply because he wrote about "The Jewish Question!"
International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem
with total censorship, so that his new books could no longer be
printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores
and even from the library shelves.
After a short period of slandering he was no longer mentioned at all
in the world's media.
As the author Ivor Benson (who has himself written a book on this
subject: The Zionist Factor) says in the foreword to Douglas Reeds
masterpiece The Controversy of Zion, which had to wait 22 years before
it could be published, "the adversity, which Reed encountered, would
have made a lesser personality give up. But not he"."
Knud Eriksen
>
>If that's the best you can do, this thread is over.
KARL L. SCHOTTE
Berlin-Lankwitz,
Dürkheimerstrasse 14,
GERMANY.
August 7th, 1933.
Dear Ken:
Dont think that I am going to be taken to an insane asylum nor that
the world is coming to an end. This is not so, and I must object very
sincerely if the fact of my sitting down again after only several
months write a letter to you gives you such impressions. The reason
for this outstanding event is much rather the hotheaded criticism
about Hitler and his Government which you gave us in your recent
letter to Ruth, and which indeed surprised me very much. However,
before giving you my point of view on the new turn that has taken
place in Germany I should like to ask you to in the first place do me
the favour of keeping your shirt on, otherwise it is you who is making
"an ass of himself". One should never speak the language of a
truckdriver, no matter how much one likes it. Now, don't be mad, but
calm down. You did not hurt Ruths or my feelings at all, but there are
two reasons why I feel I should answer you. The first reason is that
your remarks are very unfair to Hitler and his new Government, and the
other is that I intend to do my share in preventing the American
generation to which you belong to be equally as ignorant as the
generation of the whole world was which tumbled into the last war.
What makes you believe and in such a definite way state that we are
unable to see the things as they are, since, as you write, we are
hypnotized by Hitler. It is not true, that you and all those of your
friends who you claim take the same viewpoint as you are taking are
basing your opinion upon reports and comments of American newspapers
and perhaps upon interviews of American visitors who recently have
been in Germany, and while you are willing to disregard certain
exaggerations you readily accept the rest as the truth? Is it not
possible that thus you are receiving but one side of the story? You
know that the American Press endeavouring to please the so called
taste for sensational news of the American Public is working according
to the countrywide newspaper principal: All the news thats fit to
print, and be it even lies. I do not belong to those who claim that it
is the American people who have such taste, but instead it is the
American Press which in order to obtain the attention of the reader
considers any means good enough to beat competition. You will never
find such crookedness among decent business. Such business spirit is
identified all over the world with the jewish business spirit. You
must not misunderstand me. Such spirit can be found among Christian
Jews as well as among Jewish Christians, if you get what I mean.
Nevertheless it is all over the world condemned as the jewish spirit.
You will not doubt this, I suppose? Perhaps in this connection you
will find it interesting to recall that the inventor of the most
unchivalrous means to fight the enemy, namely the father of all
newspaper liars, Lord Northcliffe was a Jew. When comparing the basis
of your knowledge about present day Germany with the basis of our
knowledge, dont you think that ours at least is a broader basis? Don't
you think that the possibility of witnessing present developments in
Germany combined with the ability of reading and understanding
American newspapers can represent an ideal basis of knowledge for such
person who - and this is the important thing - is free of all feelings
of hatred against either one of the two countries? The Berlin
Correspondents of the American newspapers are not such persons. Many
of them are jews and many have taken a hostile attitude towards
Germany long before Hitler ever appeared on the stage of German Public
Life. This includes also Mr. Mowrer of the Chicago Herald Tribune who,
as I saw from the New York Times received this years Putlitzer Prise
of Journalism for his "excellent" articles on the German development.
A year ago a German Democrat, mind you, not a Nazi, expressed
astonishment that I should like to call upon Mr. Mowrer, since this
"excellent" American reporter has long enjoyed the reputation even
among German Democrats of being a German hater. This hostility towards
Germany on the part of American Correspondents in Berlin indeed could
much more entitle me to claim that it is you who is hypnotized namely
by the American Press in general.
Dear Kenneth, not until today in August 23rd could I find time to
continue this letter. When rereading what I so far have said above I
doubt if it is of any use to speak to you the way I did. I know you
are not anti-German, and yet while having received your school
education at a time of outright hostility towards Germany your mind is
only to readily inclined to accept any piece of news about Germany as
true and the correct version as long as this piece of news is
presented in such form which is free from obvious sensational
exaggeration. Since, however no piece of news published in the
American papers is reporting favourably on the German National
Socialistic Revolution your mind is systematically kept from turning
pro-German. This is the work of jewish influence in the American
Press. In face of such mental attitude of yours you naturally hesitate
to accept as the correct version anything which is told you by someone
who on one hand is not even a 100% American Citizen and on the other
hand is, as you know pro-German. For this reason I doubt if I can
change anything of your attitude towards Hitlerite Germany and of the
attitude of those of our friends who, as you claim take the same
viewpoint as you are taking. When, however, after reconsideration I
continue this letter it is, because even if I should not convince you
I wish to do my share in trying to destroy this hostile spirit of the
American People towards Germany and especially to contribute to making
the young Americans a more broadminded generation.
In the following I am going to copy part of my last letter to Mr.
Houston. The article I sent him months ago intersted him very much.
Unfortunately he told me it was not written in good enough English. I
naturally am rather disappointed that my English still is too poor.
But even if my English had been correct there would have been no
possibility to place my article, Mr. Houston wrote, not saying of
course that any favourable viewpoint is prevented from publication in
the American Press. Here is what I answered him.
" --- Wheras the American papers beyond doubt are carrying a
tremendous amount of material about Germany from their regular
correspondents, and no number of interviews from all kinds of people
who recently have been in Germany, all this material, and be it even
just a report, is skillfully presented in such form which seemingly
intentially aims at being equally offensive for Hitler and his new
Government through ridiculing his deads as giving nourishment to
anti-German sentiment. Most of the recent American visitors in Germany
seem to be of the type of jews whose hatred towards Hitlerite Germany
is a fanatical one. They of course are not in a position to give a
true picture to their countrymen of what they have seen or heard. Mr.
Michael Williams, editor of The Commonweal, president of the Calvert
Association, and a member of the Committee appointed by the American
Committee on Religious Reports and Minorities to go to Germany and
investigate conditions published a report (New York Times of June
14th) of his own private visit, since the committees visit was
postponed. He claimed to have spent "nearly" two weeks in Berlin
interviewing members of the Hitler Government, leading business and
professional men, both German and American, as well as Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish leaders. Not one single name is mentioned in his
report. "One of the most prominent German political leaders"(?) told
him that the outlawing of the Jews was a mistake comparable only to
the invasion of Belgium at the outbreak of the World War. It is plain
that such a remark, if it really was made, could be made only by a
person equally hostile towards Germany as Mr. Williams himself. Maybe
this interview took place at a concentration camp. When returning to
America these people cry: Democracy is at an end in Germany. But they
are anxiously concealing the truth that before Hitler came jewish
democratic corruption has brought Germany on the verge of Communism.
Such "Democracy" indeed is at an end now in Germany. All this
excitement about democracy being at an end and about "persecutions"
and outlawing of the German Jews who amount to but 1% of the total
German population seems very strange indeed when compared with the
calmness with which the world took the cruelty and terrorism of the
Russian Revolution which, as everyone knows, was prepared and created
by Jews and by jewish money. Too bad that Mr. James G. McDonald,
chairman of the Foreign Policy Association, can find nothing better
for him to do than to call upon all American Christians to step into
line with Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, as I see from the New York Times of
June 15th and July 11th. He too has recently been in Germany, and on
July 11th the New York Times published his address in Chautauqua, N.Y.
dealing with his visit in Germany and with the situation there as it
existed more than three months ago, namely on April 1st, at the time
of the (24 hours) anti-Jews boycott. The report in the paper was
headed by the remark: Statements that Jews are not being cruelly
treated in Germany were termed "an insult to the intelligence" by
James G. McDonald. Thus the American Public is made to believe that
Mr. McDonald is furnishing an up-to-date denial for all new reports
about improving conditions in Germany. Such is the way matters about
Germany are twisted in the American Press. Senator Wagner too has
stepped into line with Rabbi Wise as I have noticed. I regret it, but
I am convinced that many people have done so because of absolute
misinformation about present day Germany. People trying to argue in
favour of Hitlerite Germany, as Mr. Bernard Ridder tried to do, are
quickly being ridiculed as one may see from the New York Times comment
of June 14th, and I doubt if the well known Radio announcer Douglas
Brinkley who during his visit in Germany in Berlin Talkies expressed
his admiration for Hitler and this new Germany ever again will be
allowed to broadcast in America. The Berlin correspondents of the
American Press fall in line with the above mentioned general attitude
towards Germany. I suppose they have to in order to keep their jobs.
This might be easy for them, since many of them are Jews and some are
known to be hostile towards Germany long before Hitler ever appeared
in front of German Public Life. Under such circumstances it seems
plain to me that any viewpoint favourable for Germany would today not
be considered by the big American papers, since jewish influence in
the American Press is much too strong.
Dear Mr. Houston, when in the above I have given you my opinion about
American Public Opinion it was done, because I feel confident that you
will not misunderstand me. When I am arguing for Hitler and in favour
of present day Germany it is not only because of the many great deeds
of Hitler (uniting the German people, crushing Communism, successfully
fighting unemployment) but also because I positively know that the
only way to serve the purpose of German American friendship is to
bring about mutual respect between the people of the two countries. To
accomplish this one must fight for mutual respect between Opinion in
America and in Germany. German Public Opinion and the German People
are showing this respect for America. Everyone here is speaking of the
courage and leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt in terms of
admiration. It is up to American Public Opinion to give honour where
honour is due.
So much about my letter to Mr. Houston. Now I shall give you part of
my article which I sent to Mr. Houston and which he showed to Dr.
Wilbur Thomas, the Director of the Carl Schurz Foundation, and to Dr.
Carl Ackerman, the Dean of the School of Journalism at Columbia
University. Although, as I said above it is not written in good
English, Mr. Houston as well as the two other gentlemen found the
article very interesting. Here is what I said back in May 1933.
After a short introduction I wrote: "The world war was won not with
the sword but with the pen. This is a German opinion which is shared
also by a good many Americans. Apart from now one might think on this
subject nobody today would deny the fact that the pen, if used as a
weapon, can proove to be a mightly deadly sword. If now we wish to
liquidate the world war, if we seriously endeavour to promote world
peace, to promote good relationship between the nations of the world
it seems to be absolutely essential that we should stop using war
weapons and stop tolerating warlike propaganda. In other words, we
should do all we can to prevent endangering good relationship between
countries. Claiming to be well acquainted with German political
troubles of past years as well as with the mentality of the German
People I feel that the American newspaper reader is not at all put in
a position to get a clear and true conception about Germany. Above all
it is to my mind equally silly as it is preventing the education of
the American people if the American newspaper reader is left to
believe that the Germans are a barbaric nation. The absurdity of such
statements does not make them less dangerous to good relationship
between the American and the German people. If in the following I am
dealing with the fundamental achievement and the fundamental aim of
the German national socialistic revolution I am doing it for the
benefit of a better understanding between the American and the German
people. This better understanding is the more necessary the more we
wish to prevent that a few years of animosity between the two
countries should be permitted to destroy a century old friendship
between the American and the German people. Contrary to political
custom Hitler said in his address to the masses on the Tempelhof field
on May 1st that he is not going to tell the workman how important for
the Nation the labourman and his work are, and turn around and speak
to the intelligent class of people as if to the cream of the Nation,
and turn around again and speak to the peasant telling him how
valuable he is. On the contrary he is going to demonstrate to one
class of people the importance and the value of the other. This
attitude is not only wise, but it also reveals the mystery of this
sudden sense of unity that has come over the German people. When I am
going to apply the same methods while writing to America about
Germany, it is because making one people understand and respect
another people might equally well proove to be the best method to
bring about the much longed for mutual understanding between the
nations of the world.
The German national socialistic revolution beginning on January 30th,
still in full swing today, and going to be carried out furthermore for
an indefinite time to come is a revolution of mind. It is a revolution
of the national mind as well as of the social mind of the people. Only
a short time ago American Correspondents and travelling newspapermen
used to report from Germany that the growing of the Hitlerite Party
was the outcome of general dissatisfaction and hardship. If this had
been the case, if Hitler had gained support merely on the ground of
promising the same bread and work with all of his
(page missing)
possibility of such development before taking place in Germany, Hitler
succeeded in changing the minds of his followers from the Communist
rank and file. They no more are Communists, but Nationalsocialists.
They have killed in themselves that hatred they felt towards the rich
and towards the white-collar-man, in general to an equal extent as
this white-collar-man and this rich man have been made to no more look
down upon the workman or anybody doing manual labour. It is true, not
all of Germany has turned to nationalsocialism. However while for this
very reason Hitlers revolution still is in full swing, and will be
carried out furthermore until such time when this final aim is
reached, a new election, if held today, might well show an increase of
the nationalsocialsit vote from 17.5 million on March 5th to close to
30 million out of a total electorate of about 44 million votes.
Hitlers revolution of mind, as I have tried to explain it, in no way
is representing a danger to world peace, and again it seems strange
that Hitlers assurances to keep peace frequently are ignored in
reports printed in the foreign Press. As impressive as this German
revolution of mind might be to the foreign observer who knows Germany
and the German people it is only reasonable that it cannot be equally
impressive to those Americans who not yet have had a chance to visit
and get acquainted with Germany. After all, this new German spirit is
nothing new to us in America. Republicans and Democrats, both call it
the true democratic spirit. The workman in America always has been as
much respected as the white-collar-man, and our boys have long been
working their way through College through manual labour. However, for
this very reason it seems to me that no people is better equipped
mentally to understand this new Germany and its leader than the
American people.
If when writing about the Germany nationalsocialistic revolution I
would fail to touch the jewish problem in Germany the reader indeed
would miss an important explanation to a new German attitude which has
created worldwide interest and partly even new animosity. Endeavouring
to from and impartial point of view seek an explanation for this
change in Germany one must realize two outstanding facts. One is that
the percentage of Jews in Germany indeed is exceptionally small and
the other is that this small percentage in postwar years has enjoyed
an undue large share of public influence. While moreover a great many
Jewish names are connected with all kinds of affairs of administrative
corruption of postwar Germany thus making it all the easier for Hitler
and his followers to gain countrywide support when calling for a
radical reduction of the Jewish influence, it is wrong to regard this
attitude as an affront to the Jewish religion. This it is not. Instead
this attitude is directed against a postwar political system which has
discredited the marxistic parties in Germany and the Jews, since many
of them have played such prominent part in cooperation with those
parties and the many cases of illoyalty and dishonesty they have been
connected with. When I said above that the small percentage of Jews in
Germany in postwar years so far have enjoyed an undue large share of
public influence, this was possible because of their close cooperation
with the marxistic parties. In other words it was not superior ability
which entitled them to such share but political pull. Until recently
conditions in Germany indeed were of such kind that many a Christian
student would cease studying, since he had to realize that his road of
future was blocked by political interests, whereas the jewish student
would keep on studying knowing perfectly well that his father,
although perhaps a businessman and not a politician, nevertheless had
sufficient political pull to pave his way. In such development the new
Germany sees a controlling increase of the Jewish element in the field
of education which the Jewish population percentage in Germany does
not justify. Hand in hand with this development the possibility of
marrying has thus been made so much easier for the young Jewish
generation, which fact in turning no doubt is contributing to
increasing the population percentage of the German Jews to the
disadvantage of the other confessions. Such developments are of no
little importance for Germany, and while today under the Hitler
Government a radical change is being made this radicalism is not
directed against each single Jewish citizen. On the contrary the form
in which the new laws are being applied show a liberal spirit and
reveal the truth that the attitude of Hitler Germany towards this
Jewish problem ought to correctly be regarded as directed against a
political system of corruption with which the German Jews
unfortunately so impressively have identified themselves."
So much from my article. I hope I have put it clear enough to realize
that the Jewish problem in Germany is a question of life or death of
the German race. If such development as was tolerated before Hitler
came should be permitted to continue it should be obvious for everyone
that in the course of time the face of the German population would
change considerably. Germany, as you know, has a population of 66
million people. Among these 66 million are but about 600,000 Jewish
citizen. Under those circumstances as described above this small
percentage in the course of time could increase rapidly because of
conditions of life being more protected against all hardship,
marriages being made easier because of professional and business
protection which safeguard in turn enables the Jewish woman to give
birth to children. Moreover it should be easy to realize that
favouring the Jewish element to such an extent as was done before
Hitler came necessarily leads to giving away the top positions in
Government, industry, and education to Jews, while on the other hand
the German race of Protestant and Catholic confession is being pushed
back into positions of no influence which in turn in the course of
time will make them unable to lead their own country because of being
deprived the necessary educational training in matters of
administration, big business, and education. At the same time their
population percentage of now 99% is rapidly decreasing because of the
German woman through hardship of life and uncertainty because of the
German woman through hardship of life and uncertainty of the husbands
future being unable to give birth to children.
Dear Kenneth, my English might be very poor, but I hope you get what I
am trying to explain. I hope you see that Hitlers anti-Semitism is not
directed against the Jewish religion nor against each single Jew. No
Jewish citizen here is being molested. News to the contrary are lies
and nonsense. Such news naturally are being spread by Jews, since the
Jews realize very well, as the newspaper "Jewish Chronicle" published
in South Afrika recently admitted, that the Jewish fight for world
control through the Hitler Revolution in Germany has received a
setback of 100 years of strenuous work. The Jewish citizen in Germany
shall continue to enjoy a peaceful living as he did before Hitler came
with the only exception that he shall enjoy no influence beyond the
frame of his own population percentage. In the interest of the German
race I do not hesitate to call such attitude, as queer as it might
seem to you, a "democratic persecution" and I regard it as very sound.
The Jewish citizen who does not like such democratic persecution might
leave the country and immigrate somewhere else. And when I say
immigrate somewhere else you perhaps will realize how harmful it was
and still is that the USA for such a long time had kept its doors open
especially at times of business prosperity. In America the Jew saw a
vast country with tremendous resources and no end of business
possibilities. But he had no intention to go out and work. You will
find no Jew being busy as farmer. No, such common work is good enough
for the children and grandchildren of the Christian pilgrims of
German, French and English birth who alone have built up the country
which is called the United States. The Jew was doing the business of
his own race, namely lending out money and waiting in his armchair for
the return. Thus he gradually got hold of this and that business
undertaking, thus he gradually got hold of the entire country. There
is today no country in the whole world with a more powerful influence
of the Jewish element except perhaps England, than the USA. The fact
that such a powerful Christian businessman as Henry Fold is flatly
denying everything he said in his book against the Jews speaks for
itself. The German element among the American population used to have
a great influence in the country. And when I recall the name of
Steuben do you doubt that such influence was for the benefit of the
country? Where are the Steubens of today? Dont tell me there are none.
That is not correct. But it is true that in the course of time the
German American element has been degraded to the influence of a
butcher and grooceryshopowner. Where there are exceptions you will
possibly find that the exception is a Jew. The USA was not governed by
Washington but by Wall Street. Franklin D. Roosevelt is the first
President to challenge this. It remains to be seen if the power he has
been given is sufficient for the success. You may be absolutely sure
that Washington and Berlin are in perfect accord although this
sometimes does not seem so. Washington is not fighting against Hitler,
but instead is watching Hitlers experiment with the Jewish problem
with very keen interest knowing perfectly well that this experiment
might lead the whole world. Watch Ireland, watch the increase of
fashism in England, watch the change in France that will come,
remember the American Postmaster Generals order forbidding anti-German
boycottstamps on the back of envelopes.
October 2nd 1933.
Dear Kenneth: Not until today could I find time to continue this
letter, and I must admit that since your last letter arrived which
again was full of insulting remarks about Adolf Hitler I feel little
inclined to do so. I must state that you have changed greatly. You
were much more grown-up when in May 1932 you left us. I dont know
whose influence it is and I dont care. I only know that while you were
with us you grew accustomed to argue in a serious way seeking effect
only through the sincerety of your arguement and not through a strong
language. The letter method is used only by children and hysteric
women and men. If I wanted to argue with you on the basis of your last
letter I indeed could easily come back and picture a great many
Americans who have been making an ass of themselves and still are
making an ass of themselves, and I could speak much more convincing,
since I know America, whereas you in your highhatted ignorance are
adopting nothing but what jewish reporters publish and you fall for
any line of talk as long as the lies are presented in a somewhat
plausible form. You need not boast about not having Nationalsozialism
in America. It is quite doubtful if such is an advantage, and the fact
that the American Democratic system given to the country by men who
justfully can be called great Americans has grown into a system of
rotten corruption might bring about American Nationalsozialism quicker
than you think. Any system of government stands and falls with its
leaders. Are the leaders rotten the system will turn to be rotten too.
Such was the case in Germany, and such might be the case in America
too. Moreover America some day might be happy to turn to
Nationalsozialism instead of turning to Communism. However as long as
there are many of young Americans thinking the way you do, namely from
one mooving picture to another I see great trouble ahead for the
country, trouble which will be far more serious than the Russian
revolution was. When in face of your calling us being hypnotized I
answer you that I am a great admirer of Adolf Hitler I am doing so in
order to warn you to remain as narrowminded as you now are. You never
will hear the truth about present day Germany, for America at present
is a jewish country. Jewish influence is dominating, and sooner or
later the American aryans will realize what they shall have to fight
for. Nationalsozialism would never come to America from Germany but
from the aryan population in America and such will bring about a
rebirth of Washingtons United States. Why cry about the poor little
children who are called upon to join Hitlers junior leagues, when they
themselves are crazy to do so. Little Jobi has joined and he is
tickeled to death about it. Why throw out your chest and condemn
militarism when there is no country on the face of the earth more
militaristic than the United States? Or do you deny that American boys
in their small years even are receiving military training? Is such a
sign that America intends to go to war? You say: No. Well, I answer
you, Germany wont either. A picture of Hindenburg and Hitler published
in an American paper was called: A business conference between H. and
H., whereas truly it was a picture of the celebration of the battle of
Tannenberg. Such shows how much even in matters of minor importance
American newspapers are making an ass of themselves. Even if you dont
like it, Adolf Hitler is one of the greatest and at the same time one
of the most modest men Germany has ever had. Future will show that I
am right. Goodbye now, and dont think that I am sore, I am just a
little disappointed in you.
Hearty greetings,
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Nazi alert....
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 pruduction 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."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita 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 are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>So what? What Bill Gates does (or doesn't) with his money is no concern of
>mine (or yours, for that matter). In fact, I would like it if he converted all
>his assets to greenbacks and stuffed them into his mattress. That would make
>the amount of cash in circulation less and each circulating dollar would thus
>become more valuable. The same thing would happen if he simply incinerated his
>money.
We should have a law that no business leader can make more in
profit than ten times the amount his lowest paid employee gets.
Business leaders would still be very rich but a lot of other people
would be well off too. That would be a good thing.
>
>Well, suppose he puts it into a bank? That money becomes available for loans;
>since there's lot's of it the price (of loans -- interest) falls and the economy
>gets a boost. Prices fall because "things" are now cheaper.
Bankers are parasites. And the money system we have now needs to be
replaced.
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existance today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. Other banks also create the money in our money supply.
They are allowed to loan out much more money then they actually have.
Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to create money,
only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is debt-money and
it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existance, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle forWorld Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliment in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existant, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
>
>Maybe he plows it back into R&D. In a few years we'll have $1.98 computers and
>50-cent/month high-speed Internet connections. Then all your worries about
>having to work for minimum wage will be for nothing.
>
>You're focusing on the wrong thing, exactly what your handlers at the National
>Alliance want you to do. They would much prefer you didn't do much in the way
>of 'critical thinking' -- and you seem to be accomodating them.
Mr. Gates should be rich. He should have more money than he knows
what to do with. But the profits from Microsoft should be spread out
more so a lot of people are well off. What is happening instead is
Americans are losing their jobs to people who will work for a lot less
in India. Capitalism results in the few very rich and many very poor
and we don't need that.
>
>...and wno gets to define 'more evenly'? You? Me? The National Alliance?
>
We should have a law that no business leader can make more in profit
than ten times the amount his lowest paid employee gets.
>
>
>There is no course in college called "Squeezing Every Last Penny". On the other
>hand, I don't know of any successful person who started out saying "I think I
>should try to go bankrupt".
>
>
>In this case there are no other options. When you take away the rewards of
>entrepreneurship, it goes away. You think you can have all the benfits of
>capitalism without the conditions which allow capitalism to flourish. You need
>to swap out those rose-colored lenses for clear.
It's true that we should not take away the rewards of
entrepreneurship. The rewards should be very high. But capitalism
results in the few very rich and the many very poor so we need to have
some sensible laws regarding the rewards.
>
>OK! While you're at it, stamp out prejudice. You can start by stamping out
>your own prejudice of 'parasitic bankers'.
Bill Gates creates operating systems and produces things. The
bankers get rich while doing nothing like that. They are parasites.
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
> And then stamp out hate. That
>requires you to destroy the National Alliance, but I have confidence in you ;-)
The Jews control your media and rule America. That is why America is
always invading people in the Middle East.
NOT JOURNALISTS_ZIONIST PROPAGANDISTS
From: libb...@hotmail.com <mailto:libb...@hotmail.com> (libby)
Date: 9/4/02 6:46 PM Pacific Daylight
Sept.04/2002
It's important for the American people to know that all those
'American' journalists/talking heads that they see and read in the
Zionist controlled print and electronic mass media are not working for
America's interests. The very fact that they appear on CNN or write
for the Washington Post, for example, conveys the impression in the
minds of Americans that these 'journalists' are loyal Americans who
have America's best interests at heart. They are, in fact, leading
players in a huge deception and manipulation of the American people
that when attached to a cause such as, 'support of Israel', or
'attacking Iraq', is unrelenting in it's intenisty and scope... Fact
is, they
are part of the same ruling elites of mostly Zionists who by now have
a virtual stranglehold on power in America.
And even as I write this, there on CNN's TALKBACK LIVE is Daniel Pipes
of Middle East Forum, propagandizing in favor of a unilateral military
attack on a sovereign nation, Iraq. An act that if committed by any
country other than America, would be considered a war crime and
justification for America to go to war against the invading country.
The following is an excerpt from the foreword to Aldous Huxley's BRAVE
NEW WORLD.
=============
begin excerpt
=============
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by
doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is the truth, but
still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.
By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an 'iron curtain' between the masses and such facts or
arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable,
totalitarian propagandists have influenced [public] opinion much more
effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent
denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.
===========
end excerpt
===========
In plain English, propagandists don't necessarily need to lie to the
mass audience to control them. By not disclosing critical
facts/information, they ensure that no debate will ever take place on
these critical issues. This omitting of critical facts/information is
one of the very tactics used by CNN and the rest of the Zionist mass
media in America. There are many examples of this tactic and one that
comes to mind is the issue of Israel's weapons of mass
destruction(WMD's). The Zionist mass media in America does not discuss
this at all. They do not want public debate on this issue. One of the
reasons being, of course, that America's great 'ally' Israel stole
it's nuclear weapons program from America. Another issue that the
Zionists keep hidden from Americans is the $3,000,000,000 that goes to
Israel each year, payback from the 'Congress of traitors', no doubt,
for Zionist/Jewish election funding.
So Dear Americans: The next time you see/hear/read the 'work' of the
Zionist 'journalists', Kristol, Barnes, Krauthammer, Blitzer, Kagan
Zahn, Gaffney, Schneider, Limbaugh, Pipes, Kaplan, Lipsky, Zuckerman,
Goldberg and all the others, be aware that they and their bosses are
Zionists and their purpose is to serve the interests of
Zionism/Israel, AND NOT AMERICA. Take everything they say with a grain
of salt and a pound of critique.
=== =====
Roy Libby
=== =====
Truth and disclosure are a deceiver's greatest fears.
ZIONIST POWER STRUCTURE
IN AMERICA
Now that we have established the ruthless and criminal nature of
radical
Zionism, one more lesson needs to be understood before we return to
the five
dancing Israelis of 9-11 and other related stories. Even the Zionists
themselves have never denied that they have long exerted great
influence in
America. But what we must understand is that the Zionists do not
merely
influence United States policy....they dominate it! It is this
domination
that enables them to pull off monstrous crimes and then conceal them
from
the general public.
The observation that Zionists dominate the American media, government,
academia, and Hollywood has been made by many prominent Americans and
is
easily verifiable by public information.
Henry Ford said this:
"If after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered
to
the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of "scandals" and
"investigations" and "impeachments" for the removal of the
disobedient.
Usually a man with a "past" proves the most obedient instrument, but
even a
good man can often be tangled up in campaign practices that compromise
him.
It has been commonly known that Jewish manipulation of American
election
campaigns have been so skillfully handled, that no matter which
candidate
was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount of evidence to
discredit him in case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him." 33
Charles Lindbergh said this:
"Their greatest danger to this country lies in the Jewish ownership
and
influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our
government.
34
Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under
Ronald
Reagan said this:
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to
them
[the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they
want.
The Israelis know what is going on all the time. If the American
people
understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they
would
rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes
on."
35
While a guest on ABC's Face the Nation, William Fulbright - US Senator
and
Chairman of the US Foreign Relations committee - said this before a
national
television audience:
"Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned
about
the United States' interests." 36
Nationally syndicated columnist and former presidential candidate
Patrick
Buchanan said:
"The United States Congress is Israeli occupied territory." 37
And US religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon once
had
the following exchange, which was caught on tape:
GRAHAM: The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or
this
country's going down the drain".
NIXON: "You believe that?"
GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it" 38
But enough of quoting others. Let's look at the facts of Zionist
control.
FACT: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, UPN, The Washington Post, The New York
Times, The
Wall Street Journal, The New York Daily News, Time Magazine, Newsweek,
People Magazine, US News and World Report and countless other media
and
Hollywood companies all have either a Zionist CEO, a Zionist News
Chief, or
are owned by a media conglomerate which has a Zionist CEO. 39 Have you
ever noticed how Hollywood movies always seem to portray Germans and
Arabs
as a bigoted fanatics or as terrorists? Now you know why!
FACT: AIPAC, the Israeli lobbying organization, is the most feared
lobby in
Washington DC. By their own admission, they are capable of unseating
Congressmen and Senators that do not carry out their requests. The
majority
of Congressmen from both political parties receive large donations
from
AIPAC. Writing for the Nation Magazine, journalist Michael Massing
explains:
"AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in
Washington. Its 60,000 members shower millions of dollars on hundreds
of
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Newspapers like the
New York
Times fear the Jewish lobby organizations as well. "It's very
intimidating,"
said a correspondent at another large daily. "The pressure from these
groups
is relentless." 40 (emphasis added)
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=53>
FACT: The Pentagon is under the control of a hard core Zionist named
Richard
Perle. The civilian Defense Policy Board actually wields more control
over
the military establishment than the Defense Secretary or the generals
and
admirals. There are a number of other Zionists who serve on the board
(Kissinger, Cohen, Schlessinger) as well as non-jewish members who
have
always supported Israel and the expansion of the "War on Terror". The
notoriously belligerent Perle, nicknamed the "The Prince of Darkness",
is
Chairman of the Board. 41
With Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Zionist Paul
Wolfowitz
as Undersecretary of Defense, and Zionist award winner Douglass Feith
as
Undersecretary of Defense Policy, the Zionist Pentagon gang controls 3
of
the top 4 civilian leadership positions of America's armed forces.
Careerist
scoundrels like Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are either under
their
influence or unwilling to oppose their drive for WW III. The
Perle-Wolfowitz-Feith gang represent a fanatical and warmongering
"government-within-a-government". In league with these Zionist
Pentagon
conspirators are jewish Zionist and potential 2004 Presidential
candidate,
Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and his Gentile partner in crime
Senator
John McCain (R-AZ).
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=706>
An Israeli journalist named Ari Shavit, lamenting the harsh treatments
that
his government dishes out to the Palestinians, made the following
observation in Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli journal:
" We believe with absolute certitude that now, with the White House
and
Senate in our hands along with the Pentagon and the New York Times,
the
lives [of Arabs] do not count as much as our own. Their blood does not
count
as much as our blood. We believe with absolute certitude that now,
when we
have AIPAC [the Israel lobby] and [Edgar] Bronfman and the
Anti-Defamation
League, , we truly have the right to tell 400,000 people that in eight
hours
they must flee from their homes. And that we have the right to rain
bombs on
their villages and towns and populated areas. That we have the right
to kill
without any guilt." 42 (emphasis added)
And this only scratches the surface of Zionist power! With such
awesome
power to control and cover up events, is it any wonder why so many of
America's journalists and politicians are afraid to even talk about
this
issue? Is it any wonder why former President Bill Clinton would grovel
before a jewish audience and say something as ridiculous as the
following
statement:
"The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across
the
Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and
fight and
die." 43
I could go on and on at much greater length about this subject, but I
want
to get back to the dancing Israelis. Have I made my point yet?
Subject: THE ZIONIST WHORE
From: "Rasputin" a.se...@worldnet.att.net
<mailto:a.se...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 9/1/02 8:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:
<edBc9.46977$Ke2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<mailto:edBc9.46977$Ke2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>
AMERICA BECOMES THE ZIONIST'S WHORE
We have reviewed how the Zionists used and discarded Germany. Then
they used
and discarded Great Britain. After World War II, it was clear that the
chief
remaining global power was the United States. Now the USA had never
had any
problem with the Arab people, and had no reason to quarrel with the
Arabs.
For the Zionists to maintain and expand the support they were
receiving from
America, it would benefit them greatly if the Arabs and the mighty US
could
somehow become enemies. Could the Zionists possibly stoop so low? Why
not?
Look at what they had already pulled off! Remember that the official
motto
of the Mossad (Israeli's intelligence organization) is "by way of
deception
thou shalt do war." 26
In 1955, one of these "false flag" operations was publicly exposed for
the
world to see. Israeli agents, impersonating Arab terrorists, were
caught
staging a series of bombings against American installations in Egypt.
27
When this conspiracy was exposed, it ultimately created such a
controversy
that it brought down the Israeli government. The long since forgotten
scandal became known as "the Lavon Affair".
Then again during a 1967 war with the Arabs, Israeli gunboats and
fighter
jets deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, an unarmed US
communications
ship. 28 Thirty five American sailors were murdered and 170 others
injured
in a prolonged Israeli onslaught - carried out in broad daylight and
with
the U.S. flag flying prominently. The intent was to kill all of the
Americans and then leave the Egyptians to take the blame. Israel
denied that
the attack was deliberate but the chilling stories of the lucky
American
survivors clearly contradicts that lie. To this very day, the U.S.
Congress
has never investigated the USS Liberty massacre.
In 1989, the Israelis once again succeeded in framing enemy Arabs in
order
to enrage America. Former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrosvky became
so
disgusted with the criminal behavior of his own government that he
defected
from the Mossad and tried to warn America of just how evil and
dangerous
they were. Ostrovsky revealed exactly how the Israelis framed Libya
for the
bombing of a German night club which killed American servicemen. 29 It
was
this frame up job that caused President Reagan to bomb Libya, killing
the 4
year old daughter of Libyan leader Muamar Qadaffi. France refused to
allow
US bombers to fly over their air space and bomb Libya because French
intelligence knew that Libya was unjustly framed by the Israelis.
Among some
of Ostrovosky's other amazing revelations are: that the Mossad often
uses
Arab agents to carry out missions, that Israeli agents are skilled at
impersonating Arabs, that Mossad had a plan to turn American public
opinion
against Iraq, and that wealthy Zionists in America are often called
upon to
help carry out Mossad missions. Ostrovsky, whose tell all book, By Way
of
Deception, infuriated the Mossad and made him the target of numerous
death
threats. 30
In 2001, the Washington Times ran a story about a 68 page research
paper
issued by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). The
research
was compiled by 60 US Army officers as an attempt to predict the
possible
outcomes of deploying a US force to maintain peace between the Israel
and
Palestinians. Here's what SAMS had to say about the Israeli military
machine:
"a 500 pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in
both
Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to
accomplish
mission" 31
Of Israel's Mossad, the officers issued this warning:
"Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces
and make
it look like a Palestinian Arab act." 32 (emphasis added)
Why does the US, which is trillions of dollars in debt, gives away
billons
of taxpayer dollars to a foreign government whose military violates
international laws and whose Mossad is capable of murdering US troops
in
order to frame Arabs? Have we lost our minds?
Subject: Bush Must Say 'No' To Israeli Nuclear Blackmail
From: xdange...@aol.com <mailto:xdange...@aol.com>
(XDangerousDNA)
Date: 9/20/02 4:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020920193931...@mb-mc.aol.com
<mailto:20020920193931...@mb-mc.aol.com>>
LaRouche Says: Bush Must Say 'No'
To Israeli Nuclear Blackmail
Statement by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
September 18, 2002
Sept. 18 - I am warning President George W. Bush and European leaders:
If weapons inspectors return to Iraq and an otherwise-certain
Iraq-centered new Middle East war by the U.S. is thus averted, the
governments of the United States and Western Europe must be prepared
to forcefully intervene, to prevent an increasingly more desperate and
psychotic Ariel Sharon's nuclear-armed regime in Israel, the world's
third-ranking strategic nuclear-weapons power, from blowing up the
entire Middle East region, and beyond, with those weapons!
Therefore, I issued the following statement on behalf of my 2004
candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
At an international webcast, before a live audience in Washington on
Sept. 11, 2002, I identified three hurdles that had to be overcome to
avert an Iraq war that would trigger a perpetual "Clash of
Civilizations" religious conflict and a New Dark Age: First, the
United Nations Security Council had to become the venue for dealing
with the Iraq situation, and a reasonable resolution had to be
drafted, that would be agreed to by President Bush, overriding the
Sharon-influenced "war party" within his own Administration's senior
ranks. Second, the resolution had to be accepted by Iraq's Saddam
Hussein, as well as by President Bush. With those two conditions met,
LaRouche warned, the gravest, remaining danger to overcome would be a
berserker move by Sharon in Israel to sabotage the peaceful resolution
and blow up the region.
It was the threat of an Israeli nuclear attack on Iraq in 1991 that
blackmailed the first Bush Administration into launching Operation
Desert Storm. Today's Israel, under the insane Sharon regime, is the
only nation on Earth that genuinely fits the profile of a "rogue
state" armed to the teeth with "weapons of mass destruction." Israel
has the third largest nuclear weapons arsenal on Earth, and a triad of
submarine, missile, and bomber delivery systems, capable of
obliterating the entire Persian Gulf. Israeli scientists have recently
threatened that they now have the capability of launching an
intercontinental ballistic missile, meaning that no place on
Earth--including the United States--is exempt from an Israeli
preemptive nuclear attack. LaRouche asks you: Do you dare dismiss this
threat from Sharon?...
Since the 1956 attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel, until
the 1989-1991 break-up of Soviet power, Israel's access to nuclear
weapons had made it the third "tilt" power in the global strategic
equation.
Already in 1956, it took an experienced military man, President Dwight
Eisenhower, to force Israel to back down from the Suez invasion, after
both Britain and France had withdrawn under American pressure.
Eisenhower not only threatened to cut off all U.S. military and
civilian aid to Israel; he also threatened to remove the tax-exempt
status of all American organizations that provided aid to Israel. An
even more resolute action will now be required from a far-less
qualified President George W. Bush, to stop Sharon from carrying out
either a false-flag "Islamist" terrorist attack against an American
target, or a nuclear attack on Iraq or Iran. This is deadly serious
stuff, and your personal involvement in the effort to stop it is
vital.
Are you prepared to have the Sharon regime in Israel once again
blackmail an American President into starting a war in the Persian
Gulf, out of fear of an Israeli weapons of mass destruction attack on
Baghdad? Do you have any idea what the consequences will be for the
U.S. and world economy, if a new Persian Gulf War, costing American
taxpayers between $2-3 trillion, is launched today, under the current
conditions of a collapsing U.S. economy and a thoroughly bankrupt
world financial system?
I warned that the toleration for the swamp of Sharon agents inside the
Bush Administration, is another grave impediment to the President
taking the urgently required action, in concert with our European
allies and Russia, to stop Sharon from provoking this perpetual war.
In a recent mass-circulation LaRouche in 2004 release, "The Pollard
Affair Never Ended," I named the names of the leading Sharonists
inside the Bush Pentagon and State Department--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard
Perle, Doug Feith, David Wurmser--some of whom literally prepared the
foreign policy doctrine of perpetual war for then-Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July 1996. These Netanyahu-Sharon Likud
moles inside the Bush foreign policy and national security
establishment are still suspected, now with more and more evidence of
involvement with the convicted Israeli spy, the American-born Jonathan
Pollard.
Since the release and circulation of a million copies of the "Pollard
Affair Never Ended" campaign document, new, even more damning evidence
has surfaced. Therefore, I must intensify my demand for a thorough
national security investigation into key staffers in the Office of
Vice President Dick Cheney, beginning with his chief of staff and
national security advisor, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Libby, a protégé of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz for the
past 30 years, has assembled a "shadow national security council" in
the Vice President's Office, which has protected the Israeli agents
nest inside the Pentagon and State Department--and blocked an urgently
needed purge of these Likudniks. Libby has his own longstanding deep
ties to the Sharon circles, including to the Pollard spy ring.
While out of government, Libby served between 1985-2000 as the
personal attorney for fugitive swindler Marc Rich. Rich was indicted
by the U.S. Justice Department in 1983 for tax evasion and for trading
with the enemy, and he fled the United States, establishing a
luxurious hide-away in Zug, Switzerland.
Today, according to Israeli sources, Rich is under investigation, for
illegal contributions to Ariel Sharon's last political campaign. He
has been involved in Russian Mafia operations in Africa, and, through
his Marc Rich Foundation in Israel, has openly financed international
operations of the Israeli Mossad. Libby's law partner and mentor,
Leonard Garment, was a pivotal player in the Israeli government's
damage control effort, following the Pollard arrest in November 1985,
and he served as the attorney for Israeli Air Force Col. Aviem Sella,
the man who recruited and deployed Jonathan Pollard.
Now, Ariel Sharon's regime is Hell-bent on provoking a regional war in
the Middle East, a war pivoted on an Israeli pre-emptive attack on
Iraq. The threat is that, if President Bush does not virtually
exterminate Iraq, and neighboring countries, too, Israel will. This
means the likely use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. All
the while, Sharon's Washington moles are operating under the shadows
of the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense of the United
States. If Sharon is to be stopped from launching World War III in the
Middle East, this entire Pollard stay-behind apparatus must be
thoroughly investigated, exposed, and removed from government--now!
It is time for these Israeli agents and spies to be kicked out of
government, and the Israeli government to desist from its nuclear
blackmail. I demand it. I can not believe that any sane and patriotic
American would not back me up "100%" on this specific issue.
Support me actively on this issue. If you are serious about the
security of our nation and its people, I should be able to count on
you.
<http://www.larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/2002/020918isrblackmail>_
prt.htm
the following is the israeli black propaganda article:
<http://www.mediamonitors.net/gillespie1.html>
Israel is the third largest arms dealer in the world. They have
violated
hundreds of UN resolutions and they constitute a threat to the entire
Middle
East, having occupied three countries, Syria (www.ussliberty.org
<http://www.ussliberty.org>) Lebanon, and
Palestine.
So, why not bomb Israel?
<http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=334318>
ISN'T IT INTERESTING HOW THE ABOVE ARTICLE BY FISK IS THE ONLY
PRESS/MEDIA THAT
I HAVE SEEN SO FAR THAT MENTIONED THAT RITTER WAS MAKING REGULAR TRIPS
TO
ISRAEL TO BRIEF THE ISRAELIS AS TO WHAT HE WAS DOING WITH THE UNSCOM
WEAPONS
INSPECTIONS TEAMS IN IRAQ WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
RICHARD BUTLER.
NO WONDER IRAQ WANTED THEM OUT BACK IN 1998 AS I CAN EASILY UNDERSTAND
SUCH
(ESPECIALLY AFTER ISRAEL HAD VIOLATED IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY WITH THE
EARLIER
BOMBING OF THE NUCLEAR REACTOR).
I HOPE SUCH SPYING DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN IF PEACE IS GIVEN A CHANCE BY
ALLOWING
WEAPONS INSPECTORS BACK INTO IRAQ... HOWEVER, I THINK THE ONLY WAY TO
PREVENT A
US ZIONIST-DRIVEN INVASION WOULD BE TO FLOOD BAHGDAD WITH US AND
EUROPEAN PEACE
ACTIVISTS... IRAQ COULD PUT THEM UP FOR A YEAR TO LEARN ARABIC OR
SIMILAR.
OUR BIASED PRO-ISRAEL MEDIA ONLY SOMETIMES MENTIONS SPYING BUT NOT
THAT IT WAS
ISRAELI SPYING VIA UNSCOM... THE BRITISH PRESS/MEDIA PROVIDES MUCH
BETTER
COVERAGE...
Subject: ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE UN WEAPONS INSPECTIONS AS WELL
MANY AMERICANS ARE WAKING UP TO ISRAELI TREACHERY LIKE WITH THE USS
LIBERTY
ATTACK IN WHICH ISRAEL MURDERED 34 SAILORS AND WOUNDED 171 MORE JUST
TO STEAL
EVEN MORE LAND IN THE GOLAN IN SYRIA:
israel should be made to accept UN weapons inspections as well FOR ITS
NUKES
AND CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS:..
Not In Our Name... <http://www.nion.us/> Petition against a war with
Iraq.
<http://www.itsforums.co.uk/zone0/viewforum.php?f=10>
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=668>
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=643>
<http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=706>
>
>(From "A Road To Hell Paved With Good Intentions" -- Thomas Sowell retrospective
>of F A Hayek's "Road To Serfdom"):
>---------------------
>THE UNDERLYING VISION
>
>At the heart of the socialist vision is the notion that a compassionate society
>can create more humane living conditions for all through government "planning"
>and control of the economy.
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
Communism.
The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
> Both the moral and the efficiency arguments for
>socialism depend crucially on what Hayek called "intellectual hubris"--the
>assumption that we have such comprehensive knowledge that the only things
>lacking are such subjective factors as compassion and will.
>
>Socialists are "dangerous idealists," according to Hayek, including many people
>"whose sincerity and disinterestedness are above suspicion" and individuals "of
>considerable intellectual distinction." The denigration and demonizing of
>political opponents, which has been an integral part of the vision of the left
>for at least two centuries, was no part of Hayek's vision. Socialists to him
>were people who overestimated what was possible and underestimated the dangers
>created in pursuit of their ideals.
On April 10, 1938 the Germans voted for or against Hitler. 99% of
them voted for Hitler. Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
to vote for Hitler:
Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
social and economic collapse that would lead to chaos? Tens of
thousands of factories had closed their gates. Millions of workers and
employees lost their jobs and were thrown ruthlessly into the gray
misery of mass unemployment. There seemed no way out...
By the end of 1933, 2 million citizens had jobs again. By September
1936, the number of unemployed had fallen beneath a million. By 1937
unemployment had vanished...
One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
only work creates value and prosperity...
But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
German birth rate...
The National Socialist state gives major tax reductions to fathers for
each child. Families with three or more children receive payments of
10 and 20 marks monthly. By the end of 1937, 510,000 children were
receiving such support...
By the end of 1937, 252,000 mothers had received free vacations...
The Winterhilfswerk is the most beautiful expression of the new German
people's community. It is not the work of a small group of rich
people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the Führer's will:
No German may be hungry or cold!
One does not know whom to admire more: the cheerful willingness of
those who collect, or the rising amount of the gifts, to which even
the poorest contribute their share. The success of the
Winterhilfswerk, written permanently into the law of 1 December 1936,
demonstrates the efforts of the entire German nation. Gifts of money
alone totaled over 920 million marks during the four winters from
1933/34 to 1936/37. An additional 570 million marks of goods were
contributed. 50,000 freight cars alone would have been needed for the
potatoes contributed in the past years. The three million meters of
clothing given out by the WHW would stretch from Berlin to the Middle
East. The two million kilograms of coal would form a wall ten meters
high around all of Germany. These few examples, and more could be
given, prove the strength of the German people's will to be active
socialists..
Another sign of this socialism is the entirely different status of the
German worker in factories. The social honor of each working German is
guaranteed by law. The state's representatives ensure that exploiting
workers is impossible. The legal working conditions correspond to
National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and temporary workers.
There is nothing like this elsewhere in the world.
The dignity of labor is evidenced by improvements in the appearance of
the work place. Wherever one looks in Germany, ugly dark buildings are
vanishing. The "Beauty of Labor" movement in today's Germany is not
empty talk or an impossible demand, but living reality. Large sums
that formerly would have been wasted in strikes and lockouts have been
used since 1933 to improve work places. 23,000 places have been
transformed form soulless drudgery to pleasant places to work. 6,000
factory courtyards now offer space for real relaxation, which was not
true in the past. 17,000 canteens and lounges, 13,000 shower and
changing rooms have been transformed. The dirtier the work, the
cleaner the workers. More than 800 community buildings and 1200 sport
facilities , including over 200 swimming pools, have been established.
The crew quarters in over 3500 ships have also been improved.
The NS Society Kraft durch Freude brings cheer and pleasure to
workplaces through concerts and art exhibits. The art exhibits alone
introduced more than 2,5 million workers to the creations of true
German art. Just five years ago, it was obvious that the great works
of German culture belonged to a small group of the upper class.
Besides the factory concerns and art exhibitions, the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude uses theatrical performances, other concerts, singing and
musical groups to introduce the creations of German art to every
working German. 22 million citizens have attended theatrical
performances..
Of no less importance is the KdF's vacation program. Earlier, German
workers did not know what to do with their, at best, five days of
annual vacation. They could not visit the beauties of the German
landscape, much less travel abroad. The NS Society Kraft durch Freude
gave German workers the possibility of vacationing at the beach or in
the mountains, or to explore the homeland. Over 20 million have
participated in KdF trips since 1934. That is more than a quarter of
Germany's population. 19 million citizens participated in 60,000
vacation trips at home. Hand to hand, they would stretch from Berlin
to Tokyo. KdF trains have traveled 2,160,000 kilometers, or 54 times
around the world. The nine large KdF cruise ships have covered a
distance equal to twice the distance from the earth to the moon. They
have carried German workers to Madeira, Italy and Norway, broadening
their horizons and giving them unforgettable experiences. Three
additional ships will be added the KdF's own fleet of four. A KdF
resort is being built on the island of Rügen. It will not be the only
one. A series of other vacation and spa resorts will be built. They
will fulfill the Führer's wishes at the start of the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude: to lead a cheerful, creative and strong people to
success in the world.
The goal of bringing German culture to the entire German people,
regardless of their income, is especially clear with the German radio.
Thanks to the People's Radio Set, a solid, inexpensive and capable
receiver, the number of radio listeners has risen from around 4
million in 1932 to 9.1 million today. The un-German programming of the
System Era has been transformed by National Socialism. Now radio
acquaints the German people with the work of their great masters of
music and literature. Alongside these artistic programs, the
entertaining programming provides for the relaxation of hard-working
people.
Clear proof for the rising prosperity of the German people is provided
by the growing consumption of foodstuffs and luxury items of every
variety. During the prewar year 1913, only a little more than 2.9
million tons of meat were consumed. In 1937, that figure had risen to
3.7 million, up about 5% from 1932. Thanks to the elimination of
unemployment, bread consumption increased by about 10%, sugar by 15%.
Butter consumption rose from 420,000 to 519,000 tons. Milk production,
both for drinking and for making butter and cheese, rose from 23.5 to
25.4 billion liters from 1932 to 1937. Coffee consumption rose from
104,000 to 140,000 tons. Beer consumption has risen from 3.3 to 4.4
billion liters. That is an increase of about 3 billion glasses of
beer...
The growing prosperity and rising consumption of foodstuffs and luxury
items required hard work. A people can only consume what it produces.
In the face of this obvious truth, which however only became clear to
us after 1933, all the parliamentary resolutions, all the decisions of
international conferences and the demands of the international unions
become silly talk. The German people have proved that by our own work.
Germany has worked untiringly since 1933, producing itself the goods
it needs to improve its standard of living.
The rising production in all areas, which has never before been seen,
is the fruit of our work. The foundation of our life is agriculture,
whose task is to guarantee that the nation is fed. When the Führer
took power, agriculture was in a ruinous state. Officers of the court
were regular visitors at German farms. The animals and the harvest
were seized ruthlessly because taxes and interests had risen to
impossible levels that German soil could not meet. Forced auctions
drove tens of thousands of German farmers from their land. Desperation
prevailed in the villages. As a result of the desperate situation,
agriculture could not ensure the feeding of the German nation. The
ghost of hunger threatened.
Here too the Führer set to work immediately. Interest and taxes were
lowered, and the German soil was freed from usurious capital. Between
1927 and 1931, German agricultural debt rose by 2,9 billion marks.
From 1933 to 1936, it fell by 800 million marks. The interest burden,
which was over a billion marks in 1931/32, was reduced by National
Socialist actions to 630 million marks. The crowning achievement was
the creation of the Reich Inherited Farm Law, which guaranteed that
the German family farm will always remain the wellspring of the
nation...
Just as for farmers and agricultural workers, the urban population is
also being cared for. Although more than enough willing and able
workers were available in 1932, and although the housing need was
certainly great, the government put workers on the dole and built only
141,265 dwellings. This was an area in which the need for new jobs was
particularly clear. Even in 1933, the number of new dwellings rose to
178,000, with particular attention being given to small and mid-sized
units for those with limited incomes. This number grew year by year,
reaching 340,000 dwellings in 1937, double the number of 1932. In all,
National Socialist has built more than 1.4 million new, and above all
healthy and affordable, dwellings for the German people since 1933.
This is enough to house the entire population of Berlin...
Growing prosperity and production led to a growth in traffic. The
entirely neglected German highway system had to be repaired and
expanded. 40,000 kilometers of highway have been repaired since 1933.
That is enough to go all the way around the world! Then there are the
Reich Autobahns, the most splendid construction project in the world.
2,000 kilometers were open to traffic by the end of 1937. 1,000
kilometers more will be added yearly, until Germany has a highway
network unique in all the world.
Automobile production has reached a level that no one would have
thought possible a few years ago.
The number of motor vehicles in Germany has doubled, exceeding the 3
million mark in 1937. Thanks to the growing prosperity, broad circles
of our nation can now afford a car. 137,141 of the new vehicles in
1937, well over half, were purchased by workers and employees. 30,015
workers and employees were able to buy a car the previous year. Cars
are becoming both better and cheaper. The increase in cars will be
even more striking when the Volkswagen comes on the market. Enormous
factories are even now being built. The best proof for the quality and
good pricing of German cars is the fact that automobile exports have
increased by a factor of eight since 1932!..
The great improvements in the German transportation system have
resulted in a growing stream of foreign visitors. The pulsing life in
Germany is drawing more and more visitors to the Third Reich. The
number of overnights by foreigners has risen from 2.7 million in 1932
is far above 7 million in 1937. These foreigners, who often come to
Germany with false ideas, see with their own eyes the work of the
Führer and the remarkable efforts of the German people. They return
home as the best witnesses of the greatness and strength of the German
Reich...
The Führer has repeatedly reminded the German people that strong
policies are the absolute prerequisite to our economic, social and
cultural health. Only intentional hostility and stupidity can still
deny that the Führer was right in every respect...
>
>Socialists have "prepared the way for totalitarianism," according to Hayek,
>though they are themselves morally incapable of doing the hideous things
>necessary to make a totalitarian state work,
National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
in regard to free speach laws. The only difference was the right was
in power instead of the left. Before Hitler was in power he had a lot
of his papers banned, and when he was in power he also banned things.
Even today most countries do not have free speech. In leftist Germany
today people get arrested for doubting the holo story and other
things. People in Britain get arrested for politically incorrect
speech or writting. Saying that the races are not all equal in
intelligence is against the law there.
The United States has the most free speech but even here it has
banned things. At one time the play "Merchant of Venice" was banned in
New York because it offended the Jews. People in America were arrested
for their beliefs during WWII. All countries did that.
But the United States does have the most free speech and this was a
great idea. Hitler also had a great idea of removing the Jews from
controlling the media. If we could combine these two ideas we could
have a winning combination. Allowing free speech is not the same as
allowing one unelected group to virtually control all of the media.
The media is the real power, and a minor post such as President of the
United States is like nothing by comparison. Why are we voting for
President and not voting for who will control the media? When it comes
to owning TV stations it is only money that talks, not morality or
virtue.
In the Jews country, which Americans are giving billions of
dollars to, they don't allow non-Jews to own certain media.
National Socialism was mainly about things like making Germany for
the Germans, and rejecting both Communism and Capitalism. But Free
Speech is also a great idea. National Socialists today should make it
clear that Free Speech is sacred and that no party should be allowed
to change that.
> and will draw back before following
>the inescapable logic of their vision to its conclusion--leaving the field to
>those whose ruthlessness is equal to the task. Thus he saw the rise of the
>Nazis in Germany as the consequence of a prior socialist demolition of the ideas
>and values which sustained free institutions, such as the rule of law and the
>decentralization of political power and economic activity.
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponants and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are
set out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that
the few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas
chamber" which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually
built by the allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V
are in their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it
would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully admit
that
it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at
Auschwitz was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no
physical evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of
people who died from gas have been found. The Communists were the
first to enter the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists
didn't blow up the buildings? Then they could claim that these
demolished buildings used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Gemans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992],
the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess
by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating
what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death,
Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three days, he
and
Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture Hoess into
making a
"coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions of Death, p. 237],
he
and the other interrogators put the boots to Hoess the moment he was
captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face four times to get
Höess to
reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the
arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order
signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables,
where it
seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless
you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where
the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat.
Höss
tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered
in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification:
"I
took my orders frorn Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are
a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The
snow was
swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to
walk
completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the Britsh newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with
a Nazi war criminal -- We kept him awake until he confessed," October
17,
1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case of Rudolf
Hoess
included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us
when
he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during
the
war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail
cell in
the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed
with
Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for
interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed
with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help
break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out
for
exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the
bitter
cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke
down
and made a full confession to the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped,
as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral deposition
Hoess
made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it had been
extracted
from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions
of Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
translated by Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October
Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London
Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent
of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other
country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a
world-wide revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was
Gerhart Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist
Party in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film
writers of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of
Congress and sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of
the ten were communist party members and the other four were
flagrantly pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis
and the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National
Secretariat of the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two
gentiles, three nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
thoughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and
published by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes
Stalin in an interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
"...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it
is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of
things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish
dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by
Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism,
as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige
of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
>
>Once equality before the law--the application of the same rules to all--was
>brushed aside as a mere sham, since "real" equality did not exist among the
>various classes and groups subjected to that law, the path was paved for
>subordinating law itself to "results." In pursuing this line of thought and
>policy, the socialists had very different results in mind from those later
>imposed by the Nazis. But they had opened the floodgates--and once you have
>opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.
>
>Glub glub glub glub....
>
by Kevin Alfred Strom
...The May 18th meeting of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC for short) in
Washington, DC... AIPAC is the most
influential lobby in Washington, and is totally focused on
maintaining and increasing American taxpayer support for Israel,
both financial and military, and in destroying all critics of
Israel or of Jewish supremacism...
When Bush ascended to the AIPAC podium, flanked by leading Jewish
supremacists on both sides, behind him was a huge new flag
design, probably 50 feet long, consisting of American stars and
stripes interspersed with huge Stars of David. Bush, interrupted
by wild applause and several standing ovations from the Zionist
audience which included Ariel Sharon, referred to the leading
Jewish supremacists on the platform by their first names:
"I'm honored to be here at AIPAC, thank you for such a warm
welcome. It's good to be with so many friends -- friends of mine
and friends of Israel. ...I want to thank Amy for her leadership.
I appreciate you taking time to serve a cause that -- in which
you believe deeply. I want to thank Bernice for her willingness
to serve, as well. I've known Howard for a long time. He's
effective. I want to thank the AIPAC board -- AIPAC board members
for their friendship and leadership. I'm honored to be in the
presence of my friend, the Ambassador from Israel, Danny Ayalon.
I appreciate you being here, Danny."
How cozy. The president went on in this vein for about forty
minutes, acting more like an Israeli cabinet minister than an
American president. He congratulated himself for his unwavering
support for Zionism, justified the horrible terror-war being
waged on Israel's behalf in Iraq, and engaged in some
saber-rattling against other Muslim states that don't want to
have a government supervised by Jews.
Bush also repeated the catch-phrase that has a hidden meaning to
Jewish supremacists, the phrase I've spoken about before on
American Dissident Voices -- "committed to the security of Israel
as a Jewish state," which is repeated almost word-for-word again
and again by Israel's sycophants and Capitol Hill puppets. and
which means much more than seems. [
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1282 ] The words 'as
a Jewish state' are crucial: they mean support for Israel as a
racial state for one people alone, something that the Jewish
power structure denies to every White nation -- yet White
politicians must express their "commitment" to Israel. Bush
stated:
"The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly
committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state."
Identical to the catch-phrase, with only the addition of the word
'vibrant.' Bush is not committed to America as an American state
-- in fact, he supports amnesty for illegal invaders.
All that is to be expected from Bush, considering his dependence
on Jewish favor, Jewish money, and Jewish media for his election.
But what I found most chilling about Bush's groveling speech
before his masters was this section, in which he makes reference
to a recent meeting of the so-called Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is working with American
and European governments to outlaw free speech by "monitoring"
and outlawing criticism of Jews [
http://www.natvan.com/pub/2003/053103.txt
http://www.natvan.com/pub/2003/062803.txt ]:
"The Jewish people have seen, over the years and over the
centuries, that hate prepares the way for violence. The refusal
to expose and confront intolerance can lead to crimes beyond
imagining. So we have a duty to expose and confront
anti-Semitism, wherever it is found. Some of you attended a very
important event in Berlin last month, the International
Conference on Anti-Semitism. You understand that anti-Semitism is
not a problem of the past; the hatred of Jews did not die in a
Berlin bunker. In its cruder forms, it can be found in some Arab
media, and this government will continue to call upon Arab
governments to end libels and incitements. Such hatred can also
take subtler forms. The demonization of Israel, the most extreme
anti-Zionist rhetoric can be a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism,
and contribute to an atmosphere of fear in which synagogues are
desecrated, people are slandered, folks are threatened. I will
continue to call upon our friends in Europe to renounce and fight
any sign of anti-Semitism in their midst."
[ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040518-1.html
]
You'll notice two things here: 1) Bush is conflating negative
feelings about Jews, and 'rhetoric,' with actual violent acts and
a supposed 'atmosphere' that 'creates' them, thus setting the
stage for the legally-required 'monitoring' of all critics of
Jewish power and the criminalization of the free speech of these
critics, and 2) the redefinition of criticism of Israel or
Zionism, making them into just another form of so-called
"anti-Semitism," so they, too, can be 'monitored' and eventually
criminalized. Both of these are something that Jewish pressure
groups worldwide have been pushing hard for recently, and Bush
promised to give them exactly what they want.
Meanwhile, at yet another meeting, John Kerry, who is actually of
Jewish ancestry himself, tried to out-promise Bush with his
protestations of love for Zionism and hatred of any who would
criticize Jewish supremacism. At a meeting last month of the
crime-linked Jewish spying operation and pressure group, the
'Anti-Defamation League' (ADL) in Washington, Kerry said the
following:
"...what ADL stands for is what I would like to fight for. ...And
after last week's [OSCE] conference in Berlin, we celebrate 55
countries that came together who have pledged to intensify their
efforts to combat anti-Semitism and to spread tolerance. ...And
we still know that anti-Semitism, notwithstanding the meeting of
55 countries, has been growing, and demands global leadership in
order to stand up against it. ...Across the Atlantic we've seen a
new wave of anti-Semitism, masking as anti-Israel sentiment, and
it's creeping its way across Europe and the Middle East. ...The
people of Israel should also know that for the entire 20 years
that I have been in the United States Senate, I'm proud that my
commitment to a secure Jewish state has been unwavering; not even
by one vote or one letter or one resolution has it wavered. And
as president, I can guarantee you that that support and that
effort for our ally, a vibrant democracy, will continue. ...The
security of Israel is paramount."
[ http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerryadl.html ]
Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot have more than one paramount
value. If a certain thing is your highest value, that means that
all other things are of lesser or no value. Kerry says "The
security of Israel is paramount." Not the security of the United
States. Not the security of our children's future. Not the
security of Western civilization or its founding race. None of
these are paramount to Kerry, or for that matter Bush or any of
the bought politicians. The Jewish state alone is paramount. (In
one of those coincidences that is simply too funny to have been
made up, I note that Kerry's 'liaison with the Jewish community'
is a person named Jay Footlik.)
As for Ralph Nader, he himself, like Kerry, is not entirely White
(though he's not Jewish) and he cannot be expected to articulate
the interests of White Americans. He has approached Middle
Eastern issues with more objectivity than Kerry or Bush -- he
recently referred to Kerry as "part of the Washington puppet show
on the Israeli/Palestinian matter" -- and he would restrict some
of the worst abuses of the open-border maniacs for rational
economic reasons...
[ http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerry.html ]
And what of that OSCE conference on 'anti-Semitism' to which both
Kerry and Bush referred in such glowing terms? Attended by
representatives of 55 nations, many of them dependent on
US/Zionist favor for their economic survival, it marked the
agreement of those governments to 'root out' all criticism of
Jews, continue their efforts to criminalize such criticism, and
begin the most extensive internal surveillance and spying
operation ever known, to be directed against their own citizens
suspected of being aware of the issue of Jewish supremacism.
According to the New Jersey Jewish News, at the conference
"European governments acknowledged that much of the current
anti-Semitism revival hides behind criticism of Israel.
...Several congressional participants praised the work of the
conference, but warned that the meeting is only the first step in
combating a problem that continues to grow."
One of those US Congressmen attending the event was New Jersey's
Republican Representative Chris Smith, who said "When national
leaders fail to denounce anti-Semitic violence and slurs, the
void is not only demoralizing to the victims, but silence
actually enables the wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in
particular conveys approval - or at least acquiescence - and can
contribute to a climate of fear and a sense of vulnerability.
...we hope the results of this conference will serve as a
blueprint for serious and hopefully bold action. Our words here
in Berlin, however, must be repeated at home with frequency,
passion, and tenacity and matched - and even exceeded - by
deeds."
Laszlo Kovacs, the foreign minister of Hungary, told the OSCE
meeting "There can be no tolerance of extremist hate speech. We
will not tolerate it in parliament, in meetings, on the streets,
squares or football stadiums." By "extremist hate speech" they
now mean criticism of Israel, Zionism, or Jewish power. They do
not mean and will not punish Jewish supremacists when they
declare their hatred of White people or others, nor will they
punish the Jewish funding and promotion of policies which are
leading directly to genocide of the European race.
Another attendee was Democratic Congressman from Maryland Ben
Cardin, who declared "We ended up with a document that
acknowledges the importance of national leadership in fighting
anti-Semitism, and which commits nations not just to gather
information about the problem but to take action based on that."
The article continues: "As a result, OSCE members will share
information on the spread of anti-Semitism and 'best practices'
for combating it. Member nations agreed to invest in educational
and law enforcement programs aimed at reducing hate crimes and to
appoint a roving OSCE envoy to help members 'develop specific
strategies.'"
Jewish spokesman Mark Levin said of the OSCE meeting "The bottom
line is that members states of the OSCE are now committed to
monitoring and hopefully implementing programs to counter
increasing anti-Semitism..." Levin also said that America must
also monitor and 'combat' critics of Jewish power: "It was clear
we have a lot to look at in our own backyard, including using
education, law enforcement, and the Internet to combat new forms
of hatred." With every questioner of Jewish policy now put in the
'anti-Semite' category if Jewish groups so declare, Levin and
Foxman are going to be very very busy in the near future.
[ http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/50604/wldadl.html ]
[ http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040523124619.zfxkfwap ]
They may have to 'monitor' the halls of Congress. In the U.S.
Senate, Senator Ernest Hollings is about to retire -- and from
the secure position of never having to worry about reelection
again, Mr. Hollings has decided to come clean, at least
partially, on the nature of Jewish power in Washington. (By the
way, Hollings' designated successor has been chosen by the
Democratic Party: Inez Tenenbaum, the Democratic state education
superintendent. No more worries about South Carolina Senators
spilling the beans for a while, anyway. [
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/printLondon20040525.shtml
] )
Hollings' remarks included the following: "They [the Israeli
military] are coming in there [Palestinian refugee camps] with
U.S. equipment, U.S. gun helicopters, U.S. tanks that are
bulldozing. That is our policy. That is the reason for 9/11. ...I
think, frankly, we have caused more terrorism than we have gotten
rid of. ...I can tell you no President takes office--I don't care
whether it is a Republican or a Democrat--that all of a sudden
AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is... I don't
apologize for this column. I want them to apologize to me for
talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting by with it.
...Now we have killed almost 800, maimed for life thousands of
others. Are we going to just continue on?"
[ http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html
]
Good question, Senator Hollings. My question is: Why did it take
you dozens of years to tell us the truth about Jewish domination
of Washington? Other establishment figures have, perhaps
reluctantly and hesitantly, revealed the truth about who has led
us into the war: Middle East expert General Anthony Zinni has now
stated that the purpose of the war was Israel's security, and
that Jewish neocons -- naming Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, and Elliot Abrams -- were the ones
pushing for war from the beginning.
[ http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13549 ]
In parallel with the OSCE efforts in Europe, Jewish efforts to
suppress criticism are right now on track to be made into law in
the US Congress: H.R.4230 is a bill to "To authorize the
establishment within the Department of State of an Office to
Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, to require inclusion in annual
Department of State reports of information concerning acts of
anti-Semitism around the world, and for other purposes."
The bill states that "It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) the
United States should continue to vigorously support efforts to
combat anti-Semitism worldwide through bilateral relationships
and interaction with international organizations such as the
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); (2)
the United States delegation to the OSCE conference in Berlin
should advocate for the appointment of a High Commissioner on
anti-Semitism; (3) the President should direct the United States
Ambassador to the United Nations to introduce in the most
appropriate forum in the United Nations a measure condemning
anti-Semitism; (4) the Secretary of State should establish a
permanent office in the Department of State to monitor and combat
anti-Semitism; and (5) the Department of State should thoroughly
document acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement that
occur around the world."
[ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR04230:@@@P ]
It does indeed seem that there are meetings, meetings everywhere
-- in Berlin, in Washington, in the halls of Congress itself. For
the most part, these are meetings of liars and faceless
bureaucrats eager to accept Jewish money and keep their jobs by
doing what they are told.
Meanwhile, we're having some meetings of our own. Last month,
National Alliance members participated in the Institute for
Historical Review revisionist conference in Sacramento, which we
helped rescue from cowardice and Jewish censorship efforts. Just
one week earlier, we held the largest-ever National Alliance
Leadership Conference in the newly-constructed William Pierce
Memorial Hall in the beautiful mountains of West Virginia. And
just a few days ago, the New Orleans European-American Conference
gathered together Alliance members and supporters, members of
other groups, and individual activists from around the world to
meet in cooperation in setting lofty goals, putting in place a
'zero tolerance' policy on violence or lawlessness often
instigated by provocateurs, and distancing ourselves from
irresponsible elements by setting a high moral tone in our
efforts to secure a future for White children. The ideas in the
New Orleans Protocol, as it is called, are those that the
National Alliance has been promoting for years. The New Orleans
Protocol will have historic significance as we advance toward our
vision: a nation for White people, where the government is
responsible to us alone, where our interests -- and not the
interests of a foreign nation like Israel -- come first.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of
ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
Frank Clarke
<dct8s0hiil2hmes9j...@4ax.com>
>Even if you dont
>like it, Adolf Hitler is one of the greatest and at the same time one
>of the most modest men Germany has ever had.
Thank you... you've given me an excellent reason not to download the other 2300+
lines of (probable) nonsense you shipped to this thread. See ya....
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>like it, Adolf Hitler is one of the greatest and at the same time one
>>of the most modest men Germany has ever had.
>
>Thank you... you've given me an excellent reason not to download the other 2300+
>lines of (probable) nonsense you shipped to this thread. See ya....
>
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Thom
wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:51:43 GMT, Frank Clarke
><m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>like it, Adolf Hitler is one of the greatest and at the same time one
>>>of the most modest men Germany has ever had.
>>
>>Thank you... you've given me an excellent reason not to download the other 2300+
>>lines of (probable) nonsense you shipped to this thread. See ya....
>>
> The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
>lie.
My local media is controlled by Kerry Packer who is not a Jew.
>
>
> 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.
and who do you think should have ran Hollywood? McCarthy?
>
> 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 pruduction 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."
Looks like anti-semitism lost out in this case.
>
> The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
>On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
so who do you think should run Disney? Annette?
Did it ever dawn on your that a culture of hard work came from 2000
years of Jews being nearly "progromed" out of existance and barred
from many professions. Jews became big banker in the middle ages for
instance because they couldn't enter the trades.
THOM
Topaz
>My local media is controlled by Kerry Packer who is not a Jew.
Compiled by Jeffrey Blankfort
12-6-4
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 REZNIK, 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
>
>and who do you think should have ran Hollywood? McCarthy?
"With the opening of the KGB archives and the release
of the VENONA intercepts - decoded Soviet KGB and GRU
traffic - it has been proved that McCarthy was
absolutely right about the extensive Soviet penetration
of the U.S. government in all the most sensitive
sections and its danger to America. According to the
KGB archives the NKVD had 221 agents in the Roosevelt
administration in April 1941 and the Soviet military
GRU probably had a like number. He was proved right
that the Communist Party, U.S.A., was an arm of the
Soviet intelligence apparatus and the Soviet Union
considered the US as their "main enemy." His liberal
critics in academe and the mainstream media, who denied
there was Communist subversion and made excuses for it,
were proved absolutely wrong! This should have
discredited the liberal ideology and those who mouthed
it. Because the left had no answer or effective reply
to the challenge McCarthy posed, they engaged in
personal destruction - they demonized McCarthy because
he was truth."
<http://history.freeyellow.com/mccarthy.htm>
<http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/mccarthy.html>
Thom
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:39:04 GMT, toml...@melbpc.org.au (Thom) wrote:
who cares! My media is not controlled by Jews.
THOM
gwhite
>
> Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor and
> needs to be replaced.
Capitalism does not result in poverty. Poverty is normal, so we should not
bother seeking what the "causes of poverty" are. What needs solving is what
promotes prosperity, and breaks the normal state of poverty.
> It's true that Capitalism is "fair". Consider the guy who invented
> the car and all the millions of people who benefit from that...
> The guy who invented the car did a lot to make things
> better for people. Replacing capitalism would also make
> things better for people.
Then we wouldn't have the car, since that's what grew in capitalism's garden.
You're talking out both sides of your mouth.
> Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy. They say a person can
> take their job for $5 an hour or they will find someone else to take
> the job. It doesn't matter if they are making billions of dollars.
> It's all perfectly fair in their minds.
No, I'm a capitalist and I make no such fairness claim. Nor do I say that plain
old luck--good and bad--don't influence marletplace results. There indeed are
"errors in results" in practiced capitalism. The important fact is, however,
that this error is far smaller than a system, like socialism for example.
> Obviously we should have private property. And viewing business
> leaders as enemies is also ridiculous. But capitalism is a horrible
> idea and should go as extinct as the dinosaurs. In the future we have
> should advanced economics designed to make things good for people.
> ...
> We should have free enterprise, but we should also have laws against
> greed.
Capitalism *is* free enterprise. There is evidence in your postings that
suggest you aren't clear on some of the concepts you speak about and words you
use. We should, and do, have laws against fraud and stealing. These laws may
be improvable, as the laws regarding property rights could also be very likely
improved.
> The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
Actually, that is all it is: putting value upon people by instituting the Rule
of Law where they own themselves and what they produce. Adam Smith's "Wealth of
Nations" is a manifesto of standing up for the little guy--the little guy who's
only enterprise is the fruit of his muscles and his mind, because he has *no
other capital*.
> Capitalism is
> based on supply and demand.
It is based on profit *and* loss, and the Rule of Law of property rights as
exemplified by individual liberty.
> A capitalist company that made potato
> chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
> and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
> value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
> they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
LOL. It makes no sense to mass produce potato chips if the peasants are too
poor (or too dead) to buy them. You must have missed the Henry Ford ideology of
making sure the plebs can afford the goodies. There is no mass market without
masses.
> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> will work for the least pennies per hour.
Only an idiot seeks the least pennies, and it's fair to say the idiot is not a
capitalist. A capitalist willl always seek the most, not the least.
> 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?
Most businesses fail. Entrepreneur's don't really know what they are going to
earn or lose. You must have seen those company prospectives for potential
investors that always give the risk disclaimer (probably required by the SEC).
> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
Given that what you describe is socialism/communism, yes it would be far worse
than some people getting filthy rich (and turning around and employing *more*
people).
> 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.
No, there would be 4 hr/week jobs where you get a good share of what you
want/need with the 4 hours of compensation. Sounds good to me.
"Never send a human to do a robot's job." -- Gentry Lee
> Capitalism is bad for people.
No, and there is no such "thing of capitalism" as you present it. All "it" is
is people trading their efforts with each other and mutually benefiting from
that division of labor and the promotion of technology that it naturally
engenders. Capitalism is simply what people practice, if left to themselves to
do so.
Another person recommended Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" to you. Personally, I
think you would benefit more from his "Constitution of Liberty." Or maybe even
"The Fatal Conceit."
Thom
>Topaz wrote:
>>
>
>> Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor and
>> needs to be replaced.
>
>Capitalism does not result in poverty. Poverty is normal, so we should not
>bother seeking what the "causes of poverty" are. What needs solving is what
>promotes prosperity, and breaks the normal state of poverty.
Try socialism, communism and capitalism have been failures at it.
THOM
Sport Pilot
capitalism then I would say capitalism works better than communism. As
far as socialism, why is France and the other socialist countries doing
so poorly. Not much differance in communism and socialism. In one the
government owns everything, the other the government owns much of
industry and almost completly controls it. Maybe we should go to pure
capitalism, but with a law that insists that we all give 10% to
charities. I think that if the government doesn't control the
charities, except to oversee that they are not skimming the money, we
would be a lot better off including the poor.
Jim E
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>
> Try socialism, communism and capitalism have been failures at it.
>
Capitalism is thriving, communism fell on it's face.
Socialism is just communism without the balls.
See Europe as an example.
Jim E
Thom
wrote:
>Well since we won the cold war
we did? Did I miss US troops marching down Red Square?
>and Russia has half heartedly embraced
>capitalism then I would say capitalism works better than communism.
In that sense yes, but it still doesn't work for all the people any
more than communism did. In the USSR people were all lower middle
class, now they have a rich class and tons of poor.
> As
>far as socialism, why is France and the other socialist countries doing
>so poorly.
Sats who? I'm living in a socialist country right now and have never
had it so good. The French work a 37 hour week and make more on
average than the US worker does. Same with socialism in Germany where
theres a Social Democrat/Green coalition government.
>Not much differance in communism and socialism.
so so untrue, socialism is nothing like communism except that basic
services are own jointly by the peoplke for the benifit of the people.
> In one the
>government owns everything, the other the government owns much of
>industry and almost completly controls it.
Vs capitalism where just a few people who are not subject to elections
or accountability own everything???
> Maybe we should go to pure
>capitalism, but with a law that insists that we all give 10% to
>charities. I think that if the government doesn't control the
>charities, except to oversee that they are not skimming the money, we
>would be a lot better off including the poor.
Thats been said for 200 years and nothing has changed except more
poor. 19 million homeless, 38 million on food stamps, how many
working for $5 an hour etc etc. 40 million (correct me if I'm wrong)
without access to health care.... When do you expect capitalism to
start working?
No one wants to go communist but capitalism still isn't working so its
time to try something else.
THOM
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>
>> Try socialism, communism and capitalism have been failures at it.
>>
>
>Capitalism is thriving, communism fell on it's face.
>Socialism is just communism without the balls.
you know nothing about free market socialism
>See Europe as an example.
Go to Australia and you can count the street people on one hand.
Australia is a socialist country and has one of the highest standards
of living on earth.
THOM
>
>
>
> Jim E
>
>
Jim E
Not nearly as high as the US I suspect.
Socialism is communism, one sip at a time.
Jim E
> On 27 Dec 2004 06:43:56 -0800, "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Well since we won the cold war
>
> we did? Did I miss US troops marching down Red Square?
>
You leftists hat the fact that we defeated the communists by simply spending
them into oblivion.
Done by a Republican Pres. by the way.
You will never admit it.
Jim E
Topaz
>
>Capitalism does not result in poverty. Poverty is normal, so we should not
>bother seeking what the "causes of poverty" are. What needs solving is what
>promotes prosperity, and breaks the normal state of poverty.
Capitalism is not having any economic laws and the government not
doing anything for people. Maybe that is what you call normal. Anyway
poverty is normal in that case. If you do anything to stop poverty
then whatever you do will be called "socialist" by the capitalists.
>
>Then we wouldn't have the car, since that's what grew in capitalism's garden.
>You're talking out both sides of your mouth.
Free enterprise- good. Unlimited greed and no social laws- bad.
>
>No, I'm a capitalist and I make no such fairness claim. Nor do I say that plain
>old luck--good and bad--don't influence marletplace results. There indeed are
>"errors in results" in practiced capitalism. The important fact is, however,
>that this error is far smaller than a system, like socialism for example. >
>Capitalism *is* free enterprise.
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
Communism.
The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
>There is evidence in your postings that
>suggest you aren't clear on some of the concepts you speak about and words you
>use.
> We should, and do, have laws against fraud and stealing. These laws may
>be improvable, as the laws regarding property rights could also be very likely
>improved.
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
>
>Actually, that is all it is: putting value upon people by instituting the Rule
>of Law where they own themselves and what they produce. Adam Smith's "Wealth of
>Nations" is a manifesto of standing up for the little guy--the little guy who's
>only enterprise is the fruit of his muscles and his mind, because he has *no
>other capital*.
Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor. And
"socialist" laws are good for people.
"Must I remind you that the FDA is the outgrowth of the "Pure Food and
Drug
Act," which was the result of companies selling all kinds of tainted
food
and drugs! Left to their own accord, corporations will do anything
that
improves the bottom line."
Sparky
>
>It is based on profit *and* loss, and the Rule of Law of property rights as
>exemplified by individual liberty.
>
>
>LOL. It makes no sense to mass produce potato chips if the peasants are too
>poor (or too dead) to buy them. You must have missed the Henry Ford ideology of
>making sure the plebs can afford the goodies. There is no mass market without
>masses.
Henry Ford paid his workers much more than he had to. If all
industrialists were like Henry Ford we wouldn't need any laws. But
they are not.
>
>Only an idiot seeks the least pennies, and it's fair to say the idiot is not a
>capitalist. A capitalist willl always seek the most, not the least.
True, a capitalist always seeks the most.
>
>Most businesses fail. Entrepreneur's don't really know what they are going to
>earn or lose. You must have seen those company prospectives for potential
>investors that always give the risk disclaimer (probably required by the SEC).
Investors are parasites and that system should be replaced.
We need a money supply that is not owed bankers. The government
should print the money without borrowing anything from anyone. Money
would be brought into circulation by paying policemen and other public
servants. Once there is a debt-free money supply in circulation the
police and other things would be paid for by taxes. New money could
still be created if needed but we could control the amount of it so
there is no inflation.
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
>
>Given that what you describe is socialism/communism,
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
Communism.
The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
> yes it would be far worse
>than some people getting filthy rich (and turning around and employing *more*
>people).
http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-5133261.html?tag=st_rn
Offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and selling at U.S.
prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the U.S. Business and Industrial
Council, a trade group for small business. "They're not creating
better living standards for America."...
>
>No, there would be 4 hr/week jobs where you get a good share of what you
>want/need with the 4 hours of compensation. Sounds good to me.
Under capitalism you would not get an increase in pay for the four
hours. Humans would not be needed. According to the laws of supply and
demand most of them would die.
>
>"Never send a human to do a robot's job." -- Gentry Lee
>
>No, and there is no such "thing of capitalism" as you present it. All "it" is
>is people trading their efforts with each other and mutually benefiting from
>that division of labor and the promotion of technology that it naturally
>engenders. Capitalism is simply what people practice, if left to themselves to
>do so.
Without any laws and without the government doing anything for
people.
>
>Another person recommended Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" to you. Personally, I
>think you would benefit more from his "Constitution of Liberty." Or maybe even
>"The Fatal Conceit."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
wrote:
>Well since we won the cold war and Russia has half heartedly embraced
>capitalism then I would say capitalism works better than communism.
People in Russia are very poor.
> As
>far as socialism, why is France and the other socialist countries doing
>so poorly.
Russia is doing poorly. And the USA is socialist. There is a minimum
wage and a welfare system and many laws and programs for people. Not
that I agree with everything. People should do some work and not just
get a welfare check. But it is not pure capitalism.
> Not much differance in communism and socialism.
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
Communism.
The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
> In one the
>government owns everything, the other the government owns much of
>industry and almost completly controls it. Maybe we should go to pure
>capitalism, but with a law that insists that we all give 10% to
>charities. I think that if the government doesn't control the
>charities, except to oversee that they are not skimming the money, we
>would be a lot better off including the poor.
Such a law would be "socialist".
gwhite
>
> you know nothing about free market socialism
"Free market socialism" is an oxymoron.
gwhite
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:48:23 GMT, gwhite <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Capitalism does not result in poverty. Poverty is normal, so we should not
> >bother seeking what the "causes of poverty" are. What needs solving is what
> >promotes prosperity, and breaks the normal state of poverty.
>
> Capitalism is not having any economic laws and the government not
> doing anything for people. Maybe that is what you call normal. Anyway
> poverty is normal in that case. If you do anything to stop poverty
> then whatever you do will be called "socialist" by the capitalists.
The biggest thing one can do to "stop poverty" (really just promote an
environment where prosperity can grow) is to allow people to profit from their
efforts. Since that is capitalism under the Rule of Law, *no*, it is not
"socialist."
> The minimum wage they would
> call socialist.
LOL. I would simply call it stupid.
> Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor.
No.
> And "socialist" laws are good for people.
Yeah, they are great for the worst people who get on top.
> Henry Ford paid his workers much more than he had to. If all
> industrialists were like Henry Ford we wouldn't need any laws. But
> they are not.
LOL, yeah, he was a real sweetheart.
http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0306/09/f11-186954.htm
> Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
> government and at zero interest.
Dodo: "EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes."
Chorus: "But who is to give the prizes?"
> The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
If you don't like prosperity, then I can see how you would dislike capitalism.
> >"Never send a human to do a robot's job." -- Gentry Lee
>
> >
> >No, and there is no such "thing of capitalism" as you present it. All "it" is
> >is people trading their efforts with each other and mutually benefiting from
> >that division of labor and the promotion of technology that it naturally
> >engenders. Capitalism is simply what people practice, if left to themselves to
> >do so.
>
> Without any laws and without the government doing anything for
> people.
A guy offered to mow my lawn for $10. I don't think much legislation is
required.
"The Constitution of Liberty" by Hayek would be beneficial to you, since it
talks about what the foundations and purpose of the Rule of Law is, and how it
promotes prosperity.
Sport Pilot
system to me.
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>news:41d1350c...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>> On 27 Dec 2004 06:43:56 -0800, "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Well since we won the cold war
>>
>> we did? Did I miss US troops marching down Red Square?
>>
>
>
>You leftists hat the fact that we defeated the communists by simply spending
>them into oblivion.
hat the fact? Lets start by saying that I'm not a leftist, I'm
centerist. The left died 15 years ago.
And we never defeated the communists, they imploded. The USSR was
doomed from the day it started and quite frankly I'm amazed it lasted
as long as it did.
>Done by a Republican Pres. by the way.
what was?
>You will never admit it.
Can't admit to a lie. Its somewhat like the republican lies about
WMD.
THOM
>
>
>
> Jim E
>
>
>
>
>
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>news:41d1369d...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:58:27 -0800, "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Try socialism, communism and capitalism have been failures at it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Capitalism is thriving, communism fell on it's face.
>>>Socialism is just communism without the balls.
>>
>> you know nothing about free market socialism
>>
>>>See Europe as an example.
>>
>> Go to Australia and you can count the street people on one hand.
>> Australia is a socialist country and has one of the highest standards
>> of living on earth.
>>
>
>Not nearly as high as the US I suspect.
>Socialism is communism, one sip at a time.
The average Australian makes twice what the average American does and
has a lower cost of living. My flat in Melbourne with twice a week
maid service and all utilities except phone is half what I pay in the
States.
Communism is long gone, live with it. If you need an enemy try
organized religion which brought down the twin towers.
THOM
>
>
>
Thom
Then I live in an OX because that's what I see every day mate.
THOM
Thom
>Topaz wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:48:23 GMT, gwhite <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Capitalism does not result in poverty. Poverty is normal, so we should not
>> >bother seeking what the "causes of poverty" are. What needs solving is what
>> >promotes prosperity, and breaks the normal state of poverty.
>>
>> Capitalism is not having any economic laws and the government not
>> doing anything for people. Maybe that is what you call normal. Anyway
>> poverty is normal in that case. If you do anything to stop poverty
>> then whatever you do will be called "socialist" by the capitalists.
>
>The biggest thing one can do to "stop poverty" (really just promote an
>environment where prosperity can grow) is to allow people to profit from their
>efforts. Since that is capitalism under the Rule of Law, *no*, it is not
>"socialist."
any system that is based on the mental illness called greed has no
chance of helping the poor.
THOM
Jim E
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message news:41d28a14.
>
> Communism is long gone, live with it. If you need an enemy try
> organized religion which brought down the twin towers.
>
Not quite dead, but definitely needs life support. (Cuba,China)
I agree that organized religion is a pain in the ass, but thankfully there
aren't that many of them that espouse savagery in this day and age.
The ones that do need immediate extermination.
Jim E
Jim E
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:26:05 -0800, "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>news:41d1350c...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>>> On 27 Dec 2004 06:43:56 -0800, "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well since we won the cold war
>>>
>>> we did? Did I miss US troops marching down Red Square?
>>>
>>
>>
>>You leftists hat the fact that we defeated the communists by simply
>>spending
>>them into oblivion.
>
> hat the fact?
Spelling dodge, pathetic begining.
Lets start by saying that I'm not a leftist, I'm
> centerist. The left died 15 years ago.
If that is so, what do you call that loon who ran for Pres. for the dem
party recently, and those who supported him, such as M Moore ?
Is this the new definition of centrist ??
>
> And we never defeated the communists, they imploded.
Denial inability to accept cause and effect.
The USSR was
> doomed from the day it started and quite frankly I'm amazed it lasted
> as long as it did.
>
I'll let that slide.
>>Done by a Republican Pres. by the way.
>
> what was?
Affectation?
Willfull lack of comprehension ?
>
>>You will never admit it.
>
> Can't admit to a lie. Its somewhat like the republican lies about
> WMD.
>
The usual sudden sharp turn away from the subject at hand to what is
perceived as your
"safe ground".
I don't end every post with the phrase
Blow Job
Jim E
Jim E
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message news:41d28b5c.
>
> any system that is based on the mental illness called greed has no
> chance of helping the poor.
>
People only act in their own self interest.
That is why capitalism works, and all the failed
social engineering plans (socialism communism etc ) don't.
It's not greed , it's not mental disease, it is
the desire to improve ones lot in life, and that of ones offspring.
The other failed economic schemes are only of benefit to the thug at the
top, and those at the bottom too lazy to support themselves.
Jim E
Jim E
Topaz
>
>The biggest thing one can do to "stop poverty" (really just promote an
>environment where prosperity can grow) is to allow people to profit from their
>efforts. Since that is capitalism under the Rule of Law, *no*, it is not
>"socialist."
Your solution (do nothing) results in Americans loosing their jobs
and billionaire corporations hiring much cheaper labor in Mexico and
China.
>
>> The minimum wage they would
>> call socialist.
>
>LOL. I would simply call it stupid.
That is not the actual law I am for but it is socialist. Your
laughter doesn't change the fact that capitalism results in the few
very rich and the many very poor. That is how it was when the
industrial revolution started. Supply and demand was not overly hard
on people before machines replaced most of human labor. Then it became
obvious that capitalism alone is not good. Charles Dickens wrote about
the bad times it caused.
>
>> Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor.
>
>No.
There is no minimum wage in Mexico or China. Most people are very
poor.
>
>> And "socialist" laws are good for people.
>
>Yeah, they are great for the worst people who get on top.
Capitalists are likely someone talking you into sawing of the
branch on which you are sitting. According to supply and demand most
people would lose their jobs to cheaper workers in Mexico and China.
There doesn't have to be the few very rich and the many very poor.
There doesn't have to be capitalism.
>
>> Henry Ford paid his workers much more than he had to. If all
>> industrialists were like Henry Ford we wouldn't need any laws. But
>> they are not.
>
>LOL, yeah, he was a real sweetheart.
>
>http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialreport/0306/09/f11-186954.htm
>
>> Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
>> government and at zero interest.
>
>
>Dodo: "EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes."
>
>Chorus: "But who is to give the prizes?"
Everybody can win by our scrapping the debt-money system.
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existance today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. Other banks also create the money in our money supply.
They are allowed to loan out much more money then they actually have.
Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to create money,
only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is debt-money and
it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existance, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle forWorld Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliment in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existant, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
>
>If you don't like prosperity, then I can see how you would dislike capitalism.
I like prosperity.
>
>A guy offered to mow my lawn for $10. I don't think much legislation is
>required.
Not in that case. But people losing their jobs to cheaper labor in
Mexico and China is another case.
>
>"The Constitution of Liberty" by Hayek would be beneficial to you, since it
>talks about what the foundations and purpose of the Rule of Law is, and how it
>promotes prosperity.
The Law you are talking about is the Rede. It is not just about
economics. The Rede is your world view.
Topaz
wrote:
>So all of the below puts you in which camp?
National Socialism
> Seems you don't like any
>system to me.
>
There was a war against the Communists and the Capitalists.
Unfortunately the wrong side one. The other side had the right system.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Let's start by pulling back the covers. Liberals are actually Socialists.
> Very few have the courage to admit it publicly, mostly because they know
> they would lose half of their support in the Democratic Party if they did.
> But they know it is true as well as I (and most conservatives) do.
>
> Now, I'm going to use *real* simple logic here. I've seen this posted by
> virtually every lefty on Usenet at one time or another:
>
> "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of State and
> Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern fascism.
>
> What the left doesn't seem to get, and which I find *very* funny, is that
> they are in fact saying that their favorite ideology, Socialism, is really
> Fascism! Think (foreign concept here) about it: In Socialism, the State
> *owns* the Corporations! How much more "merged" could they be?
> Conservatives, on the other hand, want government *out* of the private
> sector (which includes corporations). The "un-merging" of State and
> Corporate power, as it were. Or put more simply, anti-Fascism.
What you fail to mention is that the extreme right is also fascist. Just
look at the direction that the Bush administration is taking us.
--
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com http://www.curlysurmudgoen.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
srpr...@gmail.com
conformity.
Fascism is a method, in most uses of the term; in the Axis usage, it
doesn't classify as either left or right. It's Tradition.
gwhite
> >"The Constitution of Liberty" by Hayek would be beneficial to you, since it
> >talks about what the foundations and purpose of the Rule of Law is, and how it
> >promotes prosperity.
>
> The Law you are talking about is the Rede. It is not just about
> economics. The Rede is your world view.
Okay, maybe a shrink would serve you better than any book.
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>news:41d28976...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:26:05 -0800, "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>>news:41d1350c...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>>>> On 27 Dec 2004 06:43:56 -0800, "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well since we won the cold war
>>>>
>>>> we did? Did I miss US troops marching down Red Square?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You leftists hat the fact that we defeated the communists by simply
>>>spending
>>>them into oblivion.
>>
>> hat the fact?
>
>Spelling dodge, pathetic begining.
yes, I suggest you learn to type.
>
> Lets start by saying that I'm not a leftist, I'm
>> centerist. The left died 15 years ago.
>
>If that is so, what do you call that loon who ran for Pres. for the dem
>party recently,
How would I know, I'm not a democrat? What I would call him is a Viet
Nam Vet unlike the cowards Bush and Cheney
>and those who supported him, such as M Moore ?
>Is this the new definition of centrist ??
Moore is one of your lot, in it for the money
>
>
>>
>> And we never defeated the communists, they imploded.
>
>Denial inability to accept cause and effect.
next you'll be saying brain dead Reagan defeated them.
>
> The USSR was
>> doomed from the day it started and quite frankly I'm amazed it lasted
>> as long as it did.
>>
>
>I'll let that slide.
why? Soviet/Stalin style communism never had a chance. If you want
to see true communism look at the big churches.
>
>
>>>Done by a Republican Pres. by the way.
>>
>> what was?
>
>Affectation?
>Willfull lack of comprehension ?
Reagan? Yup, hadn't a clue about reality or the USSR. He was all
show and no go just like in WW2 when he put his yellow tail between
his legs and got out of the Army to make movies with a monkey.
>
>
>>
>>>You will never admit it.
>>
>> Can't admit to a lie. Its somewhat like the republican lies about
>> WMD.
>>
>
>The usual sudden sharp turn away from the subject at hand to what is
>perceived as your
>"safe ground".
Not at all, you want to discuss lies than lets start with the latest
and greatest, the WMD on every street corner next to the flower stands
that would be used to thrtow flowers at the feet of the invading
coalition troops.
>I don't end every post with the phrase
>Blow Job
Just every impeachment
THOM
>
>
> Jim E
>
>
>
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message news:41d28a14.
>>
>> Communism is long gone, live with it. If you need an enemy try
>> organized religion which brought down the twin towers.
>>
>
>
>Not quite dead, but definitely needs life support. (Cuba,China)
Cuba and China are not communist states. There are not now or ever
communes in Cuba and China is a free market economy with a BMW plant
and a scurge of yuppies!
THOM
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message news:41d28b5c.
>
>
>
>>
>> any system that is based on the mental illness called greed has no
>> chance of helping the poor.
>>
>
>
>People only act in their own self interest.
Greedy people do.
>That is why capitalism works,
For the few. 19 million homeless plus 38 million more on food stamps.
>and all the failed
>social engineering plans (socialism communism etc ) don't.
Socialism works quite well, communism doesn't except in places like
the church.
>
>It's not greed , it's not mental disease, it is
>the desire to improve ones lot in life, and that of ones offspring.
Sorry but it is. Greed is considered a capital sin by the real
religions and the psychology community is even trained to deal with
people who are greedy. Greed is usually an indication of gross
insecurity. Check out Maslow's Heirachy
>
>The other failed economic schemes are only of benefit to the thug at the
>top, and those at the bottom too lazy to support themselves.
Thugs at the top? You mean like Haliburton?
THOM
>
> Jim E
>
>
Thom
wrote:
>
>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>
>
>By the way, you box's clock is AFU.
my clock is set to local time thank you.
THOM
>
> :-) Jim E
>
>
JimK
<cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
>What you fail to mention is that the extreme right is also fascist. Just
>look at the direction that the Bush administration is taking us.
"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not
hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
Benito Mussolini
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the
materialist conception of history of human civilization can be
explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various
social groups and by the change and development in the means and
instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in
holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no
economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of
history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than
puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real
directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the
existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied -
the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above
all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the
transformation of society....
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from
the Catholic Center Party after making a false promise to restore some
basic rights already taken away by decree.
But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of
the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.
"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic
hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and
socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which
are eternal and indestructible."
Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.
"You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours
will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"
The vote was taken - 441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats,
against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and
shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
Democracy was ended. They had brought down the German Democratic
Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a
sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/quiet.htm
Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of
the following hallmarks:
*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good
for the national or individual spirit.
*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others
(fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence
at different moments in their development).
*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally
responsible to an electorate.
*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional
attacks against both liberalism and communism.
*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in
German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic
mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as
an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that
justifies eradicating them.
*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization
beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example,
ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but
ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of
society.
*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power
"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not
hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
_Benito Mussolini
In identifying "goodness" and "superiority" with "us," there was a
tendency to identify "evil" with "them." This process involves
scapegoating and dehumanization. It was then an easy step to blame all
societal problems on "them," and presuppose a conspiracy of these
evildoers which had emasculated and humiliated the idealized core
group of the nation. To solve society's problems one need only unmask
the conspirators and eliminate them.
Fascism n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian
hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
The Nazi Party was centered in Munich which had become a hotbed of
ultra right-wing German nationalists. This included Army officers
determined to crush Marxism and undermine or even overthrow the young
German democracy centered in Berlin.
Hitler's anti-Semitic outbursts impressed his superiors including his
mentor, Captain Karl Mayr (who later died in Buchenwald). In August
1919, Hitler was given the job of lecturing returning German prisoners
of war on the dangers of Communism and pacifism, as well as democracy
and disobedience. He also delivered tirades against the Jews that were
well received by the weary soldiers who were looking for someone to
blame for all their misfortunes.
Corporal Adolf Hitler was ordered in September 1919 to investigate a
small group in Munich known as the German Workers' Party.
The use of the term 'workers' attracted the attention of the German
Army which was now involved in crushing Marxist uprisings.
"...I finally came to the conviction that I had to take this step...It
was the most decisive resolve of my life. From here there was and
could be no turning back."
Adolf Hitler joined the committee of the German Workers' Party
(Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or DAP) and thus entered politics.
The German Workers' Party consisted mainly of an executive committee
which had seven members, including Hitler. To bring in new members
Hitler prepared invitations which each committee member gave to
friends asking them to attend the party's monthly public meeting, but
few came.
And so it follows in Hitler's thinking, if there is a supreme form of
human, then there must be others less than supreme, the Untermenschen,
or racially inferior. Hitler assigns this position to Jews and the
Slavic peoples, notably the Czechs, Poles, and Russians.
Hitler describes the struggle for world domination as an ongoing
racial, cultural, and political battle between Aryans and Jews. He
outlines his thoughts in detail, accusing the Jews of conducting an
international conspiracy to control world finances, controlling the
press, inventing liberal democracy as wells as Marxism, promoting
prostitution and vice, and using culture to spread disharmony.
Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to Jews as parasites, liars,
dirty, crafty, sly, wily, clever, without any true culture, a sponger,
a middleman, a maggot, eternal blood suckers, repulsive, unscrupulous,
monsters, foreign, menace, bloodthirsty, avaricious, the destroyer of
Aryan humanity, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity...
On November 21, Hitler saw Hindenburg again and tried a different
approach. He read a prepared statement claiming that parliamentary
government had failed and that only the Nazis could be counted on to
stop the spread of Communism.
Big bankers and industrialists, including Krupp and I. G. Farben, had
lobbied Hindenburg and schemed behind the scenes on behalf of Hitler
because they were convinced he would be good for business. He promised
to be for free enterprise and keep down Communism and the trade union
movements.
"Great joy. He greets me like an old friend. And looks after me. How I
love him!" - Goebbels wrote after his second meeting with Hitler.
But this 'love' was tempered by ideological differences. Goebbels
belonged to the Nazi faction led by Gregor Strasser that actually
believed in the 'socialism' of National Socialism and had sympathy for
Marxism, a sentiment totally unacceptable to Hitler.
Hitler offered something to everyone; work to the unemployed,
prosperity to failed business people, profits to industry, expansion
to the Army, social harmony and an end of class distinctions to
idealistic young students, and restoration of German glory to those in
despair. He promised to bring order amid chaos, a feeling of unity to
all and the chance to belong. He would make Germany strong again, end
payment of war reparations to the Allies, tear up the treaty of
Versailles, stamp out corruption, keep down Marxism, and deal harshly
with the Jews.
He appealed to all classes of Germans. The name of the Nazi party
itself was deliberately all inclusive - the National Socialist German
Workers' Party.
He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace
with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do
all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. A two-thirds
majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the
constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those
votes from the Catholic Center Party after making a false promise to
restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.
But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of
the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.
"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic
hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and
socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which
are eternal and indestructible."
Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.
"You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours
will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"
The vote was taken - 441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats,
against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and
shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
Democracy was ended. They had brought down the German Democratic
Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a
sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/quiet.htm
Topaz
>
>Okay, maybe a shrink would serve you better than any book.
lib·er·al·ism n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and
the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
from
arbitrary authority.
b The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and
the
gold standard.
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Topaz
<cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
>What you fail to mention is that the extreme right is also fascist. Just
>look at the direction that the Bush administration is taking us.
In March 1937 Mussolini made a spectacular state visit to Libya, where
he opened a new military highway running the entire length of the
colon., He had himself declared protector of Islam and was presented
with a symbolic sword.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Libya/History
the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini arranged for Muslim notables
from Italian-ruled Libya to gird him with the "sword of Islam" during
a visit to Tripoli. "Muslims may rest assured," Mussolini intoned on
that occasion, "that Italy will always be the friend and protector of
Islam throughout the world." His foreign minister declared Muslim
values perfectly compatible with fascism: "The Islamic world, in
accordance with its traditions, loves in the Duce the wisdom of the
statesman united to the action of the warrior."74
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/90
Mussolini vows to help the Palestinian cause against the Jews.
http://www.stern.de/community/forum/thread.jsp?forum=35&thread=57402&message=840948
Topaz
>
>"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not
>hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
> Benito Mussolini
>
>...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism, the
>materialist conception of history of human civilization can be
>explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various
>social groups and by the change and development in the means and
>instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in
>holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no
>economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of
>history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than
>puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real
>directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the
>existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied -
>the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above
>all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the
>transformation of society....
>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
>
>Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from
>the Catholic Center Party after making a false promise to restore some
>basic rights already taken away by decree.
The National Socialists outlawed abortion. They outlawed
homosexual perversion and feminism. They outlawed pornography and
prostitution. They removed the race of anti-Christs from controlling
the media. They rejected both the madness of Communism and the greed
of Capitalism.
>
>But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of
>the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.
>
>"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic
>hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and
>socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which
>are eternal and indestructible."
>
>Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.
>
>"You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours
>will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"
>
>The vote was taken - 441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats,
>against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and
>shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
>
>Democracy was ended.
Democracy is a cruel joke when the Jews control the media.
"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher, Der Stürmer, #34/1939.
"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in
1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little
more of the gist of his message. I quote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas
suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical
result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast
numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to
live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .
"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains
a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the
sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical
thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons .
.
. who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness
old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. .
.
"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people
expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The voice of
the
people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for
it
by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who
understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .
"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making
the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the
community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life."
--
end of quote --
I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the
way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that
propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of others
always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It is not
for
nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as they were in
the
time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose Bernays' book to quote
is
that it provides a more concise and clear summary, in a few quotable
paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in modern life than most other
books on the subject.
If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. Although it is available in larger libraries, it's long
been out of print, and all it does is state the obvious: namely, that
the whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few
people have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes
and opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes
the
disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of life,
but
it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment the
thinking
of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only lead us to
greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the question
of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.
If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals
with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater honesty
than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:
"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --
To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy
has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that the
policies
guiding our nation should be decided by counting the votes of every
featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.
This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe
Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.
And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy
we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that we have a
greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up our own
minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we still have
some degree of individual freedom in the United States today because
more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far more
aristocratic
than democratic in the modern sense of the word were willing to go to
war against their legitimate government in order to secure that
freedom
for us, and people with a truly democratic temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.
Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing
in the myth of democracy is an important element in maintaining
control
over the thinking and behavior of the public. It is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely
to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read in the
New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious and
self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
To contact us via "snail mail," write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
The National Alliance: http://www.natvan.com
http://www.natall.com
>They had brought down the German Democratic
>Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a
>sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements.
No one ever made any better pronouncements.
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
>Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of
>the following hallmarks:
>
>*** Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
>
>*** Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good
>for the national or individual spirit.
Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
year of war keeps me from this work."
>
>*** Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others
>(fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence
>at different moments in their development).
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"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 opponants 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 fifteeen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponants 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.
>
>*** Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally
>responsible to an electorate.
The leader should be entirely for the people. Here are some quotes
from Mein Kampf:
"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the
multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and
personal efficiency."
"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in
the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the
individual personality?"
"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might
not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless
the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the
facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the
crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics.
Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real
qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in
political life; because under these circumstances the situation does
not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of
the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will
attract them accordingly."
"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority
can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance
but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one
man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political
line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude."
"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system
to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed
deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of
nonentities who are dependant on others for their views and who can
be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each
individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according
the the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put into effect. And by
this method alone is it possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the
real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never
be brought to account for his actions."
"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone
should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man
responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the
politicians for the time being, who constituted the parlimentary
majority, were small and incompetent men or maybe even on a lower
grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for abstract
principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of the
nation."
"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for
the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and
influence in the community."
>
>*** Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
>
>*** Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional
>attacks against both liberalism and communism.
>
>*** Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in
>German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic
>mission_often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
>
>*** Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy_seeing the enemy as
>an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that
>justifies eradicating them.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
moment
I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
literature and
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
needed
only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
highly
lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
questions.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
being
infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,
the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
far
that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
filth
directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
ought
to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existance ten
thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers
in
poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could
not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.
"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people?
"I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
result
of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I
had
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
artistic
tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
people
who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not
be
gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to
examine my
favorite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."
>
>*** The self image of being a superior form of social organization
>beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
>
>*** Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example,
>ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but
>ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of
>society.
Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former
leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS:
"One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers
was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French
Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the
concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per
year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as
generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.
Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right
to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they
applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the
younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other
hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out
blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more
generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of
rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just
coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve
days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years
with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
These figures may have been surpassed in the more than half a
century since then, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms. As
for overtime hours, they no longer were paid, as they were everywhere
else in Europe at that time, at just the regular hourly rate. The
work
day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours,
since
the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by
Hitler.
And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a
considerably increased rate...
Dismissal of an employee was no longer left as before the the
sole discretion of the employer. In that era, workers' rights to job
security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were
strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four
weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months
in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by
the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also
called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three
great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the
benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council
of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.
The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the
establishment and the development of a real community spirit between
management and labor. In any business enterprise, the Reich law
stated, the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and
workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the
goal of the enterprise and the common good of
the nation...
Thus from 1933 on, the German worker had a system of justice
at his disposal that was created especially for him and would
adjudicate all grave infractions of the social duties based on the
idea of the Aryan enterprise community. Examples of these violations
of social honor are cases where the employer, abusing his power,
displayed ill will towards his staff or impugned the honor of his
subordinates, cases where staff members threatened work harmony by
spiteful agitation; the publication by members of the Council of
confidential information regarding the enterprise which they
became cognizant of in the course of discharging their duties.
Thirteen Tribunes of Social Honor were established, corresponding
with
the thirteen commissions...
From then on the worker knew that exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or offending his honor would no longer be
allowed. He had to fulfill certain obligations to the community, but
they were obligations that applied to all members of the enterprise,
from the chief executive down to the messenger boy. Germany's workers
at last had clearly established social rights that were arbitrated by
a Labor Commission and enforced by a Tribunal of Honor. Although
effected in an atmosphere of justice and moderation, it was a
revolution.
This was only the end of 1933, and already the first effects
could be felt. The factories and shops large and small were reformed
or transformed in conformity with the strictest standards of
cleanliness and hygiene; the interior areas, so often dilapidated,
opened to light; playing fields constructed; rest areas made
available
where one could converse at one's ease and relax during rest periods;
employee cafeterias; proper dressing rooms.
With time, that is to say in three years, those achievements
would take on dimensions never before imagined; more than 2,000
factories refitted and beautified; 23,000 work premises modernized;
800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing
fields;
13,000 sanitary facilities with running water; 17,000 cafeterias.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors
would foster and closely and continuously supervise these renovations
and installations.
The large industrial establishments moreover had been given
the obligation of preparing areas not only suitable for sports
activities of all kinds, but provided with swimming pools as well.
Germany had come a long way from the sinks for washing one's face and
the dead tired workers, grown old before their time, crammed into
squalid courtyards during work breaks.
In order to ensure the natural development of the working
class, physical education courses were instituted for the younger
workers; 8,000 such were organized. Technical training would be
equally emphasized, with the creation of hundreds of work schools,
technical courses and examinations of professional competence, and
competitive examinations for the best workers for which large prizes
were awarded.
To rejuvenate young and old alike, Hitler ordered that a
gigantic vacation organization for workers be set up. Hundreds of
thousands of workers would be able every summer to relax on and and
sea. Magnificent cruise ships would be built. Special trains would
carry vacationers to the mountains and to the seashore. The
locomotives that hauled the innumerable worker-tourists in
just a few years of travel in Germany would log a distance equivalent
to fifty-four times around the world!
The cost of these popular excursions was nearly insignificant,
thanks to greatly reduced rates authorized by the Reichsbank.
Didn't these reforms lack something? Were some of them flawed
by errors and blunders? It is possible. But what did a blunder amount
to alongside the immense gains?
That this transformation of the working class smacked of
authoritarianism? That's exactly right. But the German people were
sick and tired of socialism and anarchy. To feel commanded didn't
bother them a bit. In fact, people have always liked having a strong
man guide them. One thing for certain is that the turn of mind of the
working class, which was still almost two-thirds non-Nazi in 1933,
had
completely changed.
The Belgian author Marcel Laloire would note: "When you make
your way through the cities of Germany and go into the working-class
districts, go through the factories, the construction yards, you are
astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting the Hitler
insignia, to see so many flags with the Swastika, black on a bright
red background, in the most populous districts." The Labor Front that
Hitler imposed on all of the workers and employers of the Reich was
for the most part received with favor.
And already the steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the
National Labor Service could be seen gleaming along the highways. The
National Labor Service had been created by Hitler out of thin air to
bring together for a few months in absolute equality, and in the same
uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the poorest
families. All had to perform the same work and were subject to the
same discipline, even the same pleasures and the same physical and
moral development. On the same construction sites and in the same
living quarters, they had become conscious of their commonality, had
come to understand one another, and had swept away their
old prejudices of class and caste. After this hitch in the National
Labor Service they all began to live as comrades, the workers knowing
that the rich man's son was not a monster, and the young lad from the
wealthy family knowing that the worker's son had honor just
like any other young fellow who had been more generously
favored by birth. Social hatred was disappearing, and a socially
united people was being born.
Hitler could already go into factories, something no man of the
so-called Right before him would have risked doing, and hold forth to
the mob of workers, tens of thousands of them at a time, as in the
Siemens works. In contrast to the von Papens and other country
gentlemen, he might tell them, "In my youth I was a worker like you.
And in my heart of hearts, I have remained what I was then." In the
course of his twelve years in power, no incident ever occurred at any
factory Adolf Hitler ever visited. When Hitler was among the people,
he was at home, and he was received like the member of
the family who had been most successful."
>
>*** Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power
We are consistent.
>
>"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not
>hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
>_Benito Mussolini
>
>In identifying "goodness" and "superiority" with "us," there was a
>tendency to identify "evil" with "them." This process involves
>scapegoating and dehumanization. It was then an easy step to blame all
>societal problems on "them," and presuppose a conspiracy of these
>evildoers which had emasculated and humiliated the idealized core
>group of the nation. To solve society's problems one need only unmask
>the conspirators and eliminate them.
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
Law?":
"In 1793 the famous philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, author of
"Speeches to the German Nation," wrote a pamphlet titled "A
Contribution to Correcting Judgments about the French Revolution." It
contained the following significant sentence:
"In nearly all the nations of Europe, a powerful, hostile government
is growing, and is at war with all the others, and sometimes oppresses
the people in dreadful ways: It is Jewry!"
The French Revolution, with its "ideas for the improvement of
humanity" thundered past, and in the noise the people who had believed
in world brotherhood entirely missed this serious warning. What Fichte
warned the word about then has today become fact in nearly all the
nations of the world. The Jewish people, once only tolerated, knew how
to raise a hue and cry about discrimination and persecution, winning
the sympathy of the world for the "poor Jews." They increasingly
infiltrated deep within our national organism, growing to have power
over every single area of our national life. The old saga, the "Edda,"
observes that one blocks a river at its source. The failure to do that
was the great mistake of the German people. Thank God, it is not too
late. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler recognized the importance of the
problem for Germany's rebirth, and outlined its solution in his
program.
Martin Luther wrote this of the Jews in his book "The Jews and their
Lies": "They hold we Christians captive in our own land. They have
seized our goods by their cursed usury, they mock and insult us
because we work. They are our lords, and we and our goods belong to
them." If in the coming days the Jewish race is driven out of the
non-Jewish world, it will have at least this consolation: It has made
clear to them for all time the value of maintaining the purity of race
and blood in clear, understandable and unforgettable ways.
National Socialist racial legislation has reduced the influence of
Jewry in all professions, and above all excluded them from the leading
offices of the nation. That is an important step in the relationship
between Germans and Jews, but one cannot ignore the fact that we have
not yet fully eliminated the influence of the Jewish foreign body in
German national life. It is not a question of German-Jewish
coexistence, rather of making as great as possible a separation
between blood and blood.
Three things are involved here:
A knowledge of the basic principles of National Socialist racial
thinking,
An understanding of the growth and expansion of Jewry,
The dominant sociological position of Jewry, to show how it dominated
the German people economically, intellectually and politically..."
"In discussing the Jewish Question, even today one encounters
resistance and misunderstandings, especially in intellectual circles.
This can only be explained by the intellectual education of the
political past. This is especially evident when one discusses the
fundamental issues.
Whenever a new thought arises in the world and calls people to
practical action, the old world resists because it feels its
foundations threatened. Its old standpoint has ruled for decades, and
it looks uncomprehendingly at a new idea that does not fit into the
accustomed patterns of thinking. That is natural. When the new idea
and worldview are truly revolutionary, they are on a different level
of human thought and feeling, and there can be no compromise. Its
realization depends on people who support it, and who are ready to
fight to transform the life of the individual and of the nation in
every way..."
"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people,
and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations..."
"The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must
therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and
another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both
sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according
to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe
that is is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The
world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context
of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.
The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely
negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is
radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question
clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had
been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of
the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world.
Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power
must be seen as the political education of the German people, which
had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
The question took on its own nature in Germany, Many citizens had
their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and
manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of
political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state.
Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of
complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the
East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness
had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple
rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of
our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its
Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial
measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action
in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its
anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other
country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of
anti-Semitism.
The starting point of the discussion is the scientific fact that the
Jew is different than the German. This is neither arrogant nor
boastful, it simply is the way things are. For us, the Jewish question
is a question between two peoples. Its characteristics are determined
by the racially determined differences between the two, and through
the unusual sociological and numerical development of Jewry in the
course of its history, developments that are particularly evident in
the last decades through a constantly growing process of foreign
infiltration that has reached an intolerable level for the German
people.
More than once over its history, the German people has absorbed
foreign elements, but they were racially identical or similar
population groups, as for example was the case with the Huguenots.
With the Jews, things are fundamentally different. They are seen
everywhere as foreigners, and see themselves that way as well. Walter
Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: "How strange! In the
middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands
out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has
settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg." Einstein said something in
1931: "I have to laugh when I hear the phrase 'German citizen of the
Jewish faith.' These citizens first of all want nothing to do with my
poor Eastern European brothers, and second do not want to be sons of
my (Jewish) people, but only members of the Jewish cultural community.
Is that honest? Can a non-Jew respect such people? I am not a German
citizen. I am a Jew, and am happy to belong to the Jewish people."
The most remarkable thing about Jewry is that it has not disappeared
over the millennia, even though it lacks its own territory and
language. Even more remarkable is that it lacks the main
characteristic of a minority population, its own pockets of settlement
to which it could if necessary retreat. Only time will tell if
Palestine will someday fill this gap. That question is made more
difficult by the fact that the Arabs maintain their claim on
Palestine. Whatever the twists of history, the Jew has always remained
the same, whether as a grain speculator in ancient Rome or as a bank
or stock exchange potentate in the modern era. They were always able
to control the wealth of whole nations. Nations and peoples once their
contemporaries have vanished, leaving only words and crumbled
monuments behind; only the Jew remains. In ancient days we see him
carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean.
In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free
cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole
world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The
power of this people of 15 million rests on these international
relations. This is how they seem to fulfill the commandment of Jehovah
- the world domination of the chosen people.
The secret of the Jewish people, which has enabled them to survive
through all of history's twists and turns, is that it has always
recognized the laws of blood, even anchoring them in the laws of its
religion. The consciousness of blood and family that believing Jews
have has been stronger than all the other forces of history, giving us
a unique example of a people without its own land and language, which
still meets the criteria for being a people, and which has outlasted
many other peoples.
This historic manifestation of Jewry, which is unique, brings to the
fore the question of the relationship between the host and guest
peoples. It has been answered in differing ways throughout history,
depending on the worldview and thinking then predominant.
Since the Jews were dispersed they have been held together by the laws
of their religion and their faith that they were the chosen people.
Until the middle of the 18th Century, Germans and Jews lived apart
from each other. The Jews had no opportunity to become involved in the
religious of political-intellectual life of their host people. On the
other hand, they could practice their own customs without
interference. They had their own religion and their own laws. During
the Middle Ages, the Ghetto was the way Jewry could maintain itself in
the midst of other peoples and fulfill its Jewish duties, which grew
out of its race, origins and laws. The values and ideals of other
peoples were not affected. This separation was only possible because
the views of the host people were as strong as those of the Jews.
According to the writer Grau: "There was no racial defilement or
baptism, no attempt to join a nation that one could never be a member
of, and no attempt to intellectually silence the host people." In the
Ghetto of the Middle Ages, the Jew developed his nature and
characteristics, which were later to become significant, while
maintaining the community of blood and race. The latter is
particularly important, since the strict physical separation between
the host and guest peoples maintained the foreign nature that we daily
see so clearly, now that the barriers between have long since fallen.
Even in the Middle Ages, the most important thing was not the
difference between the Christian and Mosaic faiths. Rather, there was
on the one hand the natural sense that the Jew was of a foreign race,
and on the other hand the strict law of blood which demanded a clear
separation if the Jews were to fulfill Jehovah's mission, which had
guided them from the beginning. Just this has always been kept in the
background by historians, who present the Ghetto as a tolerated asylum
for Jewish martyrs persecuted on account of their faith. There is a
gap to be filled here. The task of historians writing from our new
viewpoint will be to examine the portrait of the Ghetto of the Middle
Ages to discover its importance for the development of Jewry and the
relationship between the guest and host peoples. Even the Jewish side
is demanding that. O. Karbach criticizes historical writing because it
"in significant ways conceals the historical fact that the Jews in the
centuries before their emancipation possessed a legal standing that
was better than the greater part of the rest of the population, namely
complete or partial agricultural freedom. (Ordnung in der Judenfrage,
edited by E. Czermak, Reinhold, Vienna, 1933).
The barriers between Germans and Jews fell as a result of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The path to Jewish world
domination would take a different direction than pious, observant Jews
had expected. Emancipation made it possible to build Jewish dominance
through secular means. With the disappearance of racial consciousness,
only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time
unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his
religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time,
this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was
revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for
centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last
two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood
in the way of racial mixing. Some had the quiet hope that assimilation
would mean the absorption of Jewry. Jewry itself, however, was more
than willing to use the opportunities of religious assimilation, which
opened the path to all important positions, even to political
leadership. As H. Heine said, "baptism was the ticket to European
culture." Gradually, an intermixing with the German people developed,
particularly in its cultural elite. Foreign blood infiltrated to a
degree that we realize only today now that the "Law to Reestablish a
Professional Bureaucracy" has exposed numerous sources of foreign
blood. This process has greatly accelerated during the last fourteen
years.
Today the age of raceless thinking is being displaced by the ideals of
human variability. Values are rooted in origin and territory, and each
group has a historic mission based on its own unique and eternal
values. Such new racial thinking will of course secure the opposition
of those who either through faith or reason still believe in the unity
of humanity in culture, social order and organization. The Jews will
naturally oppose any discussion of race, since the denial of any
significant differences between people is the foundation of his
infiltration of Western European society. The Jew finds any mention of
the racial question as an attack on his current existence. His leading
role in every anti-national area is characteristic of his mimicry, and
is necessary for his continued existence. That explains the phrase
"German citizen of the Jewish faith."
The recognition that the Jew is of a foreign and different race along
with the reawakening of German racial consciousness must necessarily
lead to a change in the relations between Germans and Jews.
There is one point to keep in mind before examining the statistics.
Only those people who claimed to be Jews and were members of the
Mosaic faith were counted as Jews, not those who for internal or
external reasons belonged to another religion, or those who claimed to
be dissident Jews and therefore did not belong to the standard groups.
This is regrettable for our purposes, since we are interested not in
the influence of those who still claimed the Jewish religion, rather
those who belonged to the Jewish race! That includes all Jews, whether
of the Mosaic faith or baptized Christians. That is just what the
supporters of the Talmud and the Old Testament always said. They
complained that the state opened all offices to those "without
character," to "Christmas Jews," even admitting them to the officer
corps! The statistics given here must therefore be increased
significantly. The Jews are a race, and baptism does not in any way
change the foreign characteristics that are hostile to the German
people..."
Of course, the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Jew to
infiltrate the German body politic quickly led the Jew himself to see
that conditions for his advancement were favorable, and that the way
to the top was open. He also realized what the population statistics
meant, indeed they were particularly clear to him, since 2/3 of his
kind lived in the big cities, the centers of the liberal worldview..."
"Nothing shows the differences between our people and the Jews more
clearly than their likes and dislikes for certain occupations. In some
occupations, particularly those that are most important for the nation
as a whole, the foreign influence on German life has reached an
intolerable extent not seen elsewhere in Europe. The preference for
certain occupations also gives us an interesting insight into the
spiritual nature of Jewry.
The following figures show how much critical occupations in Germany
have been infiltrated.
112,188 Jews, or 58.8%, far more than half, are employed in the area
of "commerce and transportation, including restaurants and taverns,"
but only 17.11% (3,248,145) of the population as a whole. In the area
of "industry and craft work, including mining and construction,"
19,318 Jews (25.85%) were employed, including 31.82% of foreigners.
For the population as a whole, the figure was 40.94% (7,771,799).
The figures in the field of "public administration, the judiciary, the
army and navy, churches, legal professionals and the independent
professions." 11,324 Jews were employed there, or 5.94% , over against
921,048 (4.85%) in the general population..."
In 1925, 0.81% of Jews were active as civil servants and the army and
navy, as opposed to 2.3% of the general population. In the church,
religious occupations, the legal system and the other independent
professions, the Jewish percentage is 4.3% as opposed to 2% of the
general population. This shows that the Jews are over-represented when
compared to the general population, particularly in the independent
professions.
The percentage of the Jewish population in government positions may
seem less than that of the general population, but the difference is
not as great as the figures first suggest. The most recent figures,
not yet entirely complete, suggest that a not insignificant number of
them are baptized Jews or dissidents formerly of the Jewish faith who
denied their Jewishness to gain an official position.
4.35% of Jews are employed in the medical and health care system,
including welfare, and 2.0% of foreign Jews. The figure for the
general population is 1.88%. The Jewish percentage is thus 2 1/2 times
as high as that of the general population.
In summary, Jewish occupational patterns differ from those of the rest
of the population. Jewry seems to have an aversion to agricultural
work, industrial labor and crafts. They are greatly over-represented
in commerce and transportation, including the entire banking system.
They are also over-represented in the independent professions and the
health care system. These figures alone demonstrate a clear difference
between the native German population and alien Jewry.
Very similar conditions prevail in all Western European nations and
also in North America, since Jews have spread throughout the world in
areas with growing industry and in cities that are centers of economic
and financial power. It is not true, as is often claimed, that the Jew
was systematically forced into commerce by the laws of the various
nations; rather, commerce particularly suits the Jew's nature. This is
supported by Dr. Arthur Ruppin, a scholar respected by the Jews. He
writes in his book The Jews of the Present (2nd edition, Cologne and
Leipzig, 1911, p. 45):
"Thanks to their significant commercial gifts (!), the Jews soon
enjoyed great success in commerce and industry. For 2000 years they
have seemed predestined to work in commerce. It is false to claim, as
some do, that Jews became merchants primarily because the Christians
denied them other occupations during the Middle Ages. The Jews did not
become merchants in Europe, rather they entered the profession in
growing numbers ever since the Babylonian Captivity in Syria, Egypt
and Babylon [because they dislike labor and prefer to have others work
for them! The Editor]. In Palestine until the dispersion they did live
primarily by agriculture. In the Diaspora, there was hardly anywhere
that the Jews lived by agriculture. The Middle Ages did not make them
into merchants. It only affirmed legally that which history had
already established. It is after all the rule that economic laws
generally do not create new conditions, but only legalize and regulate
that which already exists. The law would never have limited the Jews
to commerce in Europe if they had not already immigrated primarily as
merchants..."
Nearly all national economists agree that the Jews owe their role as
merchants not to chance, but to their excellent abilities as
merchants. As W. Sombart wrote: "The Jewish race is by nature the
incarnation of the capitalism-mercantile spirit." (Der moderne
Kapitalismus, Vol. 2, p. 349. Leipzig, 1902). Many others agree..."
"Similarly differences in the relative proportion of Jews by the
self-employed are evident in the medical field, which employs 0.5% of
the general population but 2.8% of the Jews, nearly six times as many.
Similar statistics are found in the cultural area (theater, film,
radio, education, teaching, etc.). The 0.4% of the general population
are employed there, 2.6% of the Jews, also about six times as many.
In the area of public administration and the judiciary, the percentage
of Jews in high positions is 2.0%, over against 1.3% of the general
population, nearly twice as high. The significance of these figures
becomes clear that when one realizes that the 2.3% of professional
Jews in public administration and the judiciary are in a branch where
the Jewish percentage of employees is only 0.81%. That means that the
Jews are especially represented in the important positions that
influence the whole government and leading branches of the economy.."
"The statistics may be interesting. The Jewish workers included 11,406
in industry, 2,220 in commerce and transportation, and 726 in
agriculture.
The following figures show most clearly the different social structure
of Jewry in Prussia over against the general population, and reveal
clearly Jewry's leading role in public life:.."
"On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to
Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State
Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: "Should
I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the
Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim
to Bolshevism out of desperation?"
Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that,
according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925 6.9% of all
independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of
all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of
editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all
independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews
were only 1% of the population! Is that anything other than a
Jewdification of our entire cultural system?! And what would these
figures look like if one had had the ability to include baptized Jews
and dissidents?..."
"Berlin is the Jewish metropolis in Germany. The process of
Jewdification is considerably further along. That is understandable,
since one is in the immediate vicinity of the protective arms of
democracy and social democracy, where developments can occur
unhindered. Thus in Berlin on 16 June 1925 32.2% of the pharmacists
were Jews, as were 49.9% of the physicians, 7.5 of the graphic
artists, 50.2% of the attorneys, 8.5% of the editors, 14.2% of the
directors and theater heads, 12.3% of the actors and 37.5% of the
dentists.
These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is
surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action
to tell the Jews "this far and no further."
The Jewish influence gave the rest of the world an entirely false
impression of the nature of the German people. Inside the Reich, they
poisoned the soul of the people, and all social and political
relationships. Until the national uprising, the leaders of the
National Socialist movement were persecuted, defamed and suppressed by
a system that was a willing tool in the hands of a foreign and
different race. The national revolution freed the German people from
this foreign influence, which had also dominated and ruined the German
press and public life in significant ways.
He who wants to understand the German revolution of 1933 must
understand that it had this goal: 'Germany must be governed by Germans
for Germans.' The central idea of the National Socialist revolution
was the longing of the German people to once more be master in every
area of its own life. As a great, confident people, we demand only
this of the other peoples: that they permit us, as their equals, to
govern ourselves as we wish and find our own way to happiness (Reich
Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick)..."
"The Jewdification of our colleges and universities over the years has
reached almost frightening proportions. We begin with a publication
from 1931. Karl Hoppmann, in his volume "On the State of Jewdification
in the Academic professions" found the following figures:
1. University of Berlin:
Medical faculty . . . . over 50%
Philosophical faculty . . . . 25%
2. University of Göttingen, 32% of the professors were Jewish:
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 23.0%
3. University of Breslau
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
4. University of Frankfurt (Main)
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 28.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Jewry has a dominating role on the stock exchange. The board of the
Berlin stock exchange is almost exclusively Jewish. In the various
committees, the percentage of the Jewish race is sometimes many times
as high as the Aryan. The committees include:
That means that 117 or 147 members are Jews, or nearly 80%.
The extent of the Jewdification of German theater and film is evident
from 1931 figures. Of 234 theater directors, 118 (50.4%) were Jews, 92
(39.3%) were non-Jewish.
Berlin led in this area as well, with 23 of 29 theater directors (80%)
Jewish.
The situation in film is similar. The Viennese Catholic periodical
"Schönere Zukunft," which certainly cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism, wrote the following in its 3 February 1929 issue:
"The percentage of Jewry in today's film industry is so high, at least
by us in Germany, that there is only a tiny part left for Christian
firms."
Jewry has long sought political influence as well. This formerly
happened in covert ways, mostly through direct or indirect control of
money matters. Nearly every noble once had his financial Jew. Since
1848, the birth of political parties in Germany, Jewry has openly
sought to become a political power. The Jew Marx was the founder of
Marxist doctrine, the Jew Lassalle was the founder of the Social
Democratic Party. The founders of the Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany were the Jews Bernstein, Haase, Kautsky, Hilferding,
Cohn, Davidsohn, Simon, Rosenfeld, Eisner, Levi, etc. Carl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemberg were the leaders of the Communist Party, and
recently the Jews Rosenfeld and Seydewitz founded the Socialist
Workers Party. Jews sat in the press offices and the various editorial
offices of party newspapers, and above all in the various
parliamentary factions..."
"We think it necessary to mention that the Communist wave that
threatened to destroy Germany politically, economically and
intellectually can primarily be traced back to Jewry.
Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish
influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and
clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance
and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the
other. Several pointed Jewish statements are examples:
Hochmut: The familiar "Dorfgeschichte"-Auerbach says: "We Jews are the
most intelligent race." "We are the chosen ones," says Dr. Berhard
Cohn (Jüdisch-Politische Streitfragen, 20, 22). He continues: "We may
carry our head high and demand particular respect. We must not only be
treated equally, but better. We deserve the particular respect of
other peoples."
Rabbi Dr. Rulf wrote a book ("Aruchas bar-Ammni," Israel's Healing,
Frankfurt a. M. 1883) in which he says: "The Jewish people is a
blessing for all peoples. The blessing has followed on the heels of
the Jews. A whole world lives from the Jews, who feed everyone, and
everywhere spread wealth and pleasure, comfort and prosperity. Only
the commerce of the Jews creates value. Work alone does not do that.
Half of the world's population would starve without the Jews."
The Jew Dr. Duschak wrote: "The world could not exist without the
Jews." The well-known Jew Sacher-Masoch explained the hatred of
anti-Semites against the Jews in this way: It is the same hatred a
Negro feels against the whites because of their superiority.
That the Jews even went so far as to suggest to Bismark that he make
the Jewish Day of Atonement a national holiday is certainly no sign of
modesty.
Intolerance: The Jew Klausner (Society, edited by Conrad, Volume 12)
wrote: "Anti-Semitism and criminality are nearly the same thing. There
are criminals who were not anti-Semites, but no anti-Semites who were
not criminals."
The work by Dr. E. Fuchs. "The Future of the Jews," (Berlin,
Philo-Verlag, 1924) judges our greatest historians, Hartmann and
Treitschke, who see the Jews as our misfortune: "Men blinded by
prejudice and hatred. Small, tiny men."
World Domination: The Jewish attorney Maurthner in Vienna said back in
the 1880's: "It is not just a matter of fighting anti-Semitism. We
want to oppose it with Jewish domination!"
They made the attempt. If the German people had not recovered their
senses at the last moment, and if they had not had a Fuehrer and
Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who recognized the danger and woke the
German people, we would have fallen into slavery. As we have already
noted, the Jew has always known how to rouse sympathy when things were
rough for him. Consider this report from the meeting of the PEN Club
in Ragusa at the end of May of last year: "Schalom Asch in his keynote
address noted that the suffering of the Jews in Germany had aroused
the sympathy of the entire world. Only the German government remained
untouched. He claimed the Jews has given Germany its deepest thoughts,
its most beautiful songs, its greatest poets, artists and
philosophers. Today one had crucified them in Germany and covered them
with their own blood." Mr. Schalom Asch began crying in the midst of
these outrageous lies. He spoke in the hope that his words would be
heard for the sake of justice and humanity throughout the world.
The Jew Asch cries! The German people are not moved. They want no
torture or persecution, but also no unjustified sympathy, only
justice! Remember always the worlds of Field Marshall Moltke: "The Jew
is a state within the state." Remember also the works of our great
historian Mommsen: "In antiquity too the Jew was the ferment of
cosmopolitanism and national decomposition." And remember Goethe: "The
Israelites have never done much; they possess few virtues, and most of
the deficiencies of other peoples!"
The Racial Question has an important role in the laws of other
nations, though other peoples and races are affected than in the
German Reich. It is in no way new or unusual that the German Reich is
active in this area. Contrary to opinions that surface here and there,
our laws are in no way directed against the Jewish religion, its
practice, or the freedom of the Jewish faith.
The German Reich has done nothing but introduce constitutional
legislation to provide the kind of civil service necessary to
guarantee the secure administration of the Reich. The laws do not
render it impossible for a citizen of a foreign state to become a
civil servant. Indeed, if he is appointed to such a position, he
receives full citizenship in the Reich. German civil servants should
however be of Aryan descent. The so-called Aryan Law requires that
each civil servant be of German blood. Since the vast majority of
non-Aryan civil servants were Jews, the first guidelines to the law
paid particular attention to those who were members of the Jewish
race. But we did not simply throw out the non-Aryan civil servants,
but retired them with honor and a pension. The people's state could
hardly proceed in a more legal and mild manner. Germany did not want
to attack Jewry wildly, rather only deal with its results, is clear
from the fact that the Law of 7 April 1933 left untouched all
non-Aryan civil servants who had been appointed before 1 August 1914,
and by the fact that the private sphere not affected. Some complain
that the law extends to half and quarter Aryans. The answer is that
the foreign influence in the civil service had grown to such a
dangerous extent that it was almost impossible for young Germans to
enter these professions." (Reich Minister of the Interior Dr.
Frick..."
General Leon Degrelle was the leader of the Belgian contingent of
the Waffen SS. He was in
75 hand-to-hand combat actions against the Marxists. This is what he
wrote:
"German racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was
"anti-other race"... National Socialist racialism was not against the
other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and
improving its race and wished that all other races did the same for
themselves. It was demonstrated when the Waffen
SS enlarged its ranks to include 60,000 Islamic SS troops.
The Waffen SS respected their way of life, their customs and their
religious beliefs. Each Islamic SS battalian had an iman; each company
had a mullah. It was our common wish that their qualities found their
highest expression... I was present when each of my Islamic comrades
received a personal gift from Hitler during the new year. It was a
pendant with a small Koran. He was honouring them with what was the
most
important aspect of their lives and their history."
Nonsense. And National Socialism is socialist.
Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:
"Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
"Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so that he
better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment no longer
haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again, and those
who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
plant in which they together work...
Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
individual good, who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
"right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
service to the people. The National Socialist Labor Service will see
to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
for the good of the nation."
>
>Hitler offered something to everyone;
And delivered.
"We Have Ways of Shutting You Up!"
James Thurgood on characteristically one-sided democracy
"Reading the Jewish Chronicle (JC) is always instructive. Obtaining my
copy in my local newsagents is slightly embarrassing: people of 'the
faith' are numerous in my neighbourhood and when I step up to the
counter to pay there are often one or two of them queuing for the same
purpose. As they observe what I am buying, and then examine my person,
I can just imagine them muttering to themselves: "He doesn't look like
one of us!" One gentleman with a rather rabbinical appearance once
made so bold as to ask, with doubt in his eyes: "Are you Jewish?" I
replied negatively, of course. It then occurred to me to add,
mischievously: "I just believe in keeping an eye on them."
I could see the man's face crease into a frown, so thinking "In for a
penny, in for a pound," I went on to say: "You know, this is where you
get a lot of the real news - the sort you don't read in the ordinary
press."
I recalled that remark last month when wondering how the fraternity in
question were going to react to the rise of Jeorg Haider in Austria.
Actually,... Haider has been making a number of apologies lately - for
instance for daring once to say something complimentary about Hitler's
employment policies. Well, what's wrong with that?... the fact is that
he did put 6 million jobless Germans back to work in very quick time.
I believe anyway that politicians are almost always wrong to
apologise, and Herr Haider did not go up in my estimation on that
account.
But of course, it is always the perception of what a politician is,
rather than the reality, that determines attitudes towards him. Haider
is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as some kind of neo-nazi monster.
Hence my curiosity.
The way Haider's success was greeted in the Jewish Chronicle was of
great interest to me - but more because of what it told me about the
writers in that paper and their attitudes than what was said about
Haider himself.
The JC was in a not-unaccustomed dilemma. The paper, of course, stands
for the loftiest principles of 'democracy'. But has not Haider risen
to his present powerful position in Austrian politics by the
democratic vote of the people? You see the problem!
The JC leader (4th February) spoke first about the very rapid manner
in which the other member states of the European Union reached
agreement as to what their response was to be to the prospect of the
Haider party having places in the Austrian Government. "They served
notice," it said, "that any role for Mr. Haider's party would prompt
them drastically to downgrade ties with Austria. This would, among
other things, involve shelving bilateral exchanges with the Austrians,
curtailing political contacts with Austrian envoys in EU states, and
refusing to back Austrian candidates for posts in international
organisations."
To which the ordinary rational person would no doubt react by saying:
"So what?" It is doubtful that great numbers of Austrians will be
applying at their chemist's shops for additional sleeping tablets on
those accounts. But we should read a little further.
Generally approving this Europe-wide reaction, the JC also admitted
its snags, acknowledging that it might make Mr. Haider yet more
popular at home. Yet, the leader continued:-
"This does not mean the outside world should abruptly change course,
abandon its position of principle and take a softly-softly approach.
It does mean that the underlying principle must be patiently, publicly
and articulately explained. The aim - it must be made clear - is not
to seek to exclude Austria and its people from the EU or the world
family of nations, nor to question the right of voters to choose who
governs them. It is to define bedrock tenets with which the world
community hopes to build a 21st century on lessons learned from the
bigotry and murder that too often marked the 20th. To the extent
Austria chooses to include in its government a party rooted in an
opposing vision of both the past and the future, to continue business
as usual would be illogical, and immoral."
Sting in the tail
You have to be something of a JC-watcher - which I might extend by
saying a watcher of the entire liberal, New World Order-oriented press
- to see the not immediately clear message here. It lies in the last
two lines, and the operative word is 'business'. This, I suspect,
means much more than just business in the diplomatic sphere -
cross-border contacts, appointments to international offices, etc. It
looks very much as if it could mean actual trade and commerce. Is the
Jewish Chronicle leader giving the first hints of a planned economic
boycott?
To get a clue as to the answer to that question, we might turn to an
article on Page 31 of the same issue by John Diamond, who was much
more explicit.
Mr. Diamond, of course, believes too in the democratic freedoms -
well, almost but not quite. There is, you see, democracy and
democracy; it all depends for whom. He is, he begins by saying, "...a
fully paid-up member of the freedom-of-speech brigade." He continues:
"I spent my formative political years telling anyone who would listen
that it was Voltaire who cracked the one about disagreeing with what
you say but defending to the death your right to say it."
But, he goes on...
"...then along comes little Austria, a paid-up member of the European
Union, and announces that its equivalent of the Conservative Party is
in an uncomfortable colloquy with its ultra-right-wing Freedom Party,
with the result that any day now the erstwhile annexe to the
Fatherland might once again have N***s in government. OK: they're not
National Socialists in the scientific sense, perhaps, but when you
have a party which talks about Aryans, immigrants and bloodied soil in
the way some in the Freedom Party do, it's hardly worth splitting
hairs."
By now, Mr. Diamond is clearly anticipating some people disagreeing
with his drift. He has prepared for that; he has an answer:-
"But hold on, say the other side: what about democracy? If Jeorg
Haider's chums go into the government or even, God forbid, run the
government, it will be as a result of the democratic will of the
Austrian people. Equally, Austria was elected into the EU by what
passes for democracy in that institution. We can't just kick them out
because we don't like the people they elect to power."
Now Mr. Diamond is really in full flow, and the reader can almost
predict what's coming next. He does not disappoint:-
"It's perceived to be the same argument that we liberals use when we
say that, much as we despise the British National Party, we regard its
right to erect websites, hold bring-and-buy coffee mornings and
publish maniacal brochures about how the Jews control the world as
inviolable. But it's not the same argument at all."
Why isn't it? - the reader will naturally begin to ask. But that
reader obviously is not aware that people like Mr. Diamond make the
rules in these matters - or at least that is their presumption.
Homosexuals, even paedophiles, may use the net. So may the spokesmen
for the IRA and other terrorist groups; you will not find the John
Diamonds objecting to this. All sorts of organisations, in addition to
this, may publish tracts claiming that such-and-such control the
world: Catholics, freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses and little green men
from Mars. No problem! That's the freedom that Voltaire talked about,
and Mr. Diamond stoutly defends it. As he said, he's a fully paid-up
member of the freedom-of-speech brigade.
But when it comes to saying critical things about Mr. Diamond's own
people, that's different. You see the point?
'Dealing' with those Austrians
All this is building up to the most important thing that Mr. Diamond
wants to say. He has obviously been wrestling in his mind with the
question of how to say it, because he is aware of its contradictions.
He believes in democracy, as we have seen; but on the other hand some
democracy, for some people, just can't be allowed. So what are we to
do about Austria and Haider? Mr. Diamond has the answer:-
"...within the non-bellicose bounds of international diplomacy, we
have a limited armoury with which to deal with a party led by a
professed admirer of some of Hitler's policies. We have no right to
stop Haider saying such things, but we can say, in effect to Austria:-
" 'Elect whatever government you choose - that's your prerogative.
But, equally, it's our prerogative to stop trading with you, going to
your ski-runs, sending you our ambassadors or generally treating you
like civilised people. It's your loss, and the practical loss will be
greater than whatever gain you perceive there to be in sending a few
Turkish or East European immigrants home. Come back when you've
decided to stop being silly.'
"This is the way to deal with the nastier by-products of free speech.
It shouldn't, for instance, be necessary to pass laws to stop
right-wing fanatics from saying that evil Jews are taking over the
world. Simply make sure publishers know that, if they want to sell
such nonsense to true believers, they'll have problems selling other
books to the rest of us. Don't like a fascist website? There are
plenty of suppliers of Net facilities to the fascists who would lose
out if the rest of us stopped using their services."
Here, spelled out in as frank terms as we could wish for, is Mr.
Diamond's idea of how 'democracy' should work. It will be noted that
nowhere does he suggest that the arguments of people he thinks are
wrong should be countered in open and honest debate and proved, by
superior argument, to be fallacious. That, to most of us, is what
democracy has meant across the ages. But to Mr. Diamond? Oh no! In the
eyes of him and his ilk, it means something entirely different.
To him and his ilk, democracy means the right to suppress the views of
people you don't like by threats and intimidation - mainly economic
intimidation. Boycott their industries for a start! In Austria a big
industry is tourism. Very well, let's not visit their ski-slopes.
Where does this lead us? Shall we refuse to buy recordings made by the
Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra? Shall we refuse even to listen to
Mozart, Haydn, Schubert or Strauss? After all, Mr. Diamond has
suggested that we should not treat the Austrians - out of whose ranks
have come these immortal geniuses - like "civilised people."
And extending the issue beyond Austria, it is clear that Mr. Diamond
believes that Internet suppliers who hire facilities to those of whose
politics he disapproves should simply be closed down - not by an act
of law (that would be too blatant) - but by ruining them by boycott.
Booksellers and publishers? Same treatment! Make sure hardly anyone
buys their books and they'll fold up. Business is business!
This then seems to be the ideal of democracy believed in by Mr.
Diamond - and many like him. Perhaps it's all part of the "bedrock
tenets with which the world community hopes to build the 21st
century." We cannot say we haven't been told!"
Spearhead Online
Jim E
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:55:49 -0800, "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>news:41d28976...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:26:05 -0800, "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
>>>>news:41d1350c...@news.melbpc.org.au...
>>>>> On 27 Dec 2004 06:43:56 -0800, "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well since we won the cold war
>>>>>
>>>>> we did? Did I miss US troops marching down Red Square?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You leftists hat the fact that we defeated the communists by simply
>>>>spending
>>>>them into oblivion.
>>>
>>> hat the fact?
>>
>>Spelling dodge, pathetic begining.
>
> yes, I suggest you learn to type.
>>
>> Lets start by saying that I'm not a leftist, I'm
>>> centerist. The left died 15 years ago.
>>
>>If that is so, what do you call that loon who ran for Pres. for the dem
>>party recently,
>
> How would I know, I'm not a democrat? What I would call him is a Viet
> Nam Vet unlike the cowards Bush and Cheney
>
You bought that lie, of course you did.
I do remember that both of My tours of VN lasted twelve months, but then I
didn't have the connections of that rich sob.
Jim E
Jim E
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:11:58 -0800, "Jim E" <fatboy-...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message news:41d28b5c.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> any system that is based on the mental illness called greed has no
>>> chance of helping the poor.
>>>
>>
>>
>>People only act in their own self interest.
>
> Greedy people do.
Your opinoin worthless.
>
>>That is why capitalism works,
>
> For the few. 19 million homeless plus 38 million more on food stamps.
Many homeless are that way by choice, drunks, druggies, social missfits.
>
>>and all the failed
>>social engineering plans (socialism communism etc ) don't.
>
> Socialism works quite well, communism doesn't except in places like
> the church.
>>
If socialism works so well why is europe still in the pooper and the US
economy has rebounded?
>>It's not greed , it's not mental disease, it is
>>the desire to improve ones lot in life, and that of ones offspring.
>
> Sorry but it is.
Again your opinion, worthless.
Greed is considered a capital sin by the real
> religions and the psychology community
Great, now you reference a superstitious cult organizatin, and a "science"
with equivilant
credentials. Why not reference scientology or
your Oija board??
is even trained to deal with
> people who are greedy. Greed is usually an indication of gross
> insecurity.
Says the champion of the underachievers party. Compensation is also
something they study.
Check out Maslow's Heirachy
Anything like Mao's little red book ?
>>
>>The other failed economic schemes are only of benefit to the thug at the
>>top, and those at the bottom too lazy to support themselves.
>
No like the Chineese leadership,
And you didn't address the lazy slimes that just use the system for a free
ride, wonder why.
> Thugs at the top? You mean like Haliburton?
>
I don't believe Haliburton is in a nation leader position.
Jim E
Jim E
All other posts show up here time corrected to my local, yours is like the
better part of a day off, just curious .
Weird server incompatibility?
Honest, just wonder.
Jim E