I'd rather live under socialism than fascism.
Starbla...@excite.com
Everybody who votes Republican should note that Bush is trying to
destroy the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution, step by step, and should
change to Democrat so that they can vote in the primaries. To be
honest, I think Lieberman would make a great commander-in-cheif.
Strabo
So that's your condensation of the election, "Lieberman
would make a great commander-in-chief."
We spent eight years fending off Clintonian attacks on the
Bill of Rights only to be followed by Bush and the Neocons
who have taken a different tact.
Lieberman is a Neocon.
Fascism is but a form of socialism.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Topaz
...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.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
JT
Enemy of the Human Individual. In this particular case the Devil is *not*
in the details.
> and should change to Democrat so that they can vote in the primaries
Shirley...you *can't* be serious.
At least, 10% of Republicans seem to feel at least a twinge of conscience
when they rape the American People.
Democrats insist that their rape of us is Good and Right...and they demand
that we bend over and respectfully ask Our Betters for it.
Republicans are the slightly lesser of two horrendous evils, why would we
leap from the frying pan into the Inferno?
- JT
<Starbla...@Excite.com> wrote in message
news:1162374129....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Frank Clarke
<zqa2h.6117$Gg5.2735@trndny02>
>Republicans are the slightly lesser of two horrendous evils,
Anyone who votes for 'the lesser of two evils' is affirmatively voting for evil.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
<11624127...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>
>Starbla...@Excite.com wrote:
>> http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732834.php
>>
>> Everybody who votes Republican should note that Bush is trying to
>> destroy the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution, step by step, and should
>> change to Democrat so that they can vote in the primaries. To be
>> honest, I think Lieberman would make a great commander-in-cheif.
>
>So that's your condensation of the election, "Lieberman
>would make a great commander-in-chief."
>
>We spent eight years fending off Clintonian attacks on the
>Bill of Rights only to be followed by Bush and the Neocons
>who have taken a different tact.
???????????? Somebody hasn't been paying attention. The USA PATRIOT ACT (
U ndermining
S hredding
A nd
P ilfering
A merica's
T reasured
R ights
I n
O rder
T o
A ccelerate
C omplete
T otalitarianism
) is the worst thing to happen since the Alien & Sedition Acts.
P.s.: it's 'tack'. You could look it up if you have a dictionary.
JT
> evil.
Nope.
If you tell me, and I believe you, that you are in fact going to either
shoot me with a Howitzer or stab me with a nasty-looking letter opener, but
that I get to choose which, I'm going to choose the letter opener in order
to minimize the damage and hopefully survive.
I'm voting for the *difference* in physical harm, not for the harm itself.
I am given only the choice of greater or lesser harm, not the choice of
"harm" or "no harm".
Only in the most literal and technical sense...i.e. the sense that
preoccupies most "libertarians" on almost every issue, and often very
affirmatively keeps them from moving their ideas forward into American
society...am I "voting to be harmed". I do not want the harm and I do not
give my permission to be harmed, I am doing the only thing I can to minimize
the harm that *will* in fact occur.
When I decide that there is a possibilty that someone other than the
Republican or the Democrat will win I usually vote for the candidate
convinces me that his ideas most closely match my own.
When there is absolutely no hope for that candidate, but my vote might put
the Republican in office instead of the Democrat, then I vote Republican if
the Republican's positions match mine more closely...which is almost
*always* the case.
Case in point, I'm voting for Kerry Healy, the Republican, in the MA
governor's race. Because the only statistically possible alternative is
Deval "Higher Taxes Make Massachusetts a More Attractive Place to Live"
Patrick. So I'm voting in the hope that Ms. Healy will do less damage to my
state than that rat bastard commie fucker Patrick will.
I am not "affirmatively voting for evil" in any realistic sense (only in a
linguistically literal sense). I am voting for the measure of good that a
Healy win might do vs. a Patrick win.
I'm getting sick of explaining this to "libertarians" who think that their
1% or 2% "won" in a given election is some kind of purist "statement". I'm
sure they feel morally superior when they pull the lever, but in a tight
race their 2% could mean much worse suffering for everyone. Thanks guys!
- JT.
"Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3fjik29s8627536lr...@4ax.com...
Topaz
live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
seven days a week.
Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
as little as possible.
As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
14 hours a day and seven days a week. It's all based on "supply and
demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
people.
Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - that a
business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
average nonexecutive wage of his workers. This shares the wealth. The
business leader is forced to pay his workers more, while at the same
time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for business leaders to
start new businesses.
Topaz
"Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
the leadership of the state.
The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
towered above the individual fate."
Frank Clarke
<uax2h.5236$WB4.836@trndny04>
>If you tell me, and I believe you, that you are in fact going to either
>shoot me with a Howitzer or stab me with a nasty-looking letter opener, but
>that I get to choose which, I'm going to choose the letter opener in order
>to minimize the damage and hopefully survive.
If that were truly representative of 'the difference' between the two major
parties I would be forced (reluctantly) to agree.
But it's not.
The 'difference' is more akin to being shot with a 75mm cannon or a 90mm cannon.
In that case, it hardly matters: either one is going to do so much damage only
the direct intercession of a supernatural being will save you.
That's what you're voting for.
Frank Clarke
<uax2h.5236$WB4.836@trndny04>
>I'm getting sick of explaining this to "libertarians" who think that their
>1% or 2% "won" in a given election is some kind of purist "statement". I'm
>sure they feel morally superior when they pull the lever, but in a tight
>race their 2% could mean much worse suffering for everyone. Thanks guys!
You're welcome.
JT
Nope. You can debate with yourself all day about canon sizes, fact is
Republicans are just slightly enough better than Democrats, because they
still allow some slight acknowledgement of principles of individual rights
to creep into their stated political positions, so as to warrant the vote
under the conditions I described.
A stiff-necked refusal to live in the real world is what *you're* voting
for.
- JT
"Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:42vnk2hltlm3un26f...@4ax.com...
Sargent
JT wrote:
>>That's what you're voting for.
>
>
> Nope. You can debate with yourself all day about canon sizes, fact is
> Republicans are just slightly enough better than Democrats, because they
> still allow some slight acknowledgement of principles of individual rights
> to creep into their stated political positions, so as to warrant the vote
> under the conditions I described.Anyone that values their life and their family needs to study the major difference between the Republican and Democrats on the issue of National Security.
Democrats
1) Democrats have celebrated the release of Top Secret National Security
Programs designed to stop terrorist.
2) Democrats have called for the closing of the prisons that house
terrorist. Democrats what to give each captured terrorist ACLU lawyers
and their day in US court.
3) Democrats have betrayed and belittled the trust of our ally Nations.
4) Democrats have contempt for the US military.
5) Are against the Patriot Act, needed to protect the USA.
6) Calls the wiretapping of Terrorist "wiretapping of Americans"
8) Against missile-defense system.
7) It seems that no National Security matters are safe in their hands.
The far left has taken over the Democrat Party. Proof they dumped Joe
Lieberman, a moderate in the DNC.
On other issues:
1) Democrats have promised to raise taxes.
2) Continue their attack on the traditional Family.
3) Wants to appoint Judges that will make Laws, rather than apply them.
Republican Party:
1) National defense is the main responsibility of government.
2) America must fight terrorism abroad in order to prevent it at home;
history from 911 to today is proof this true.
3) Border Security is National Security, started the making of a
southern border fence.
4) US military is a force for good against the War on Terror and should
not be painted evil because of a few bad individuals.
5) Believe that schools should be held accountable for student progress
through testing.
6) Taxes should be low and fair.
7) Equal opportunity for all (not forced equality by government).
8) Have helped bring the US to the lowest unemployment in decades.
9) Home ownership is at a all time high.
Vote Republican !
Michael Price
> JT wrote:
>
> >>That's what you're voting for.
> >
> >
> > Nope. You can debate with yourself all day about canon sizes, fact is
> > Republicans are just slightly enough better than Democrats, because they
> > still allow some slight acknowledgement of principles of individual rights
> > to creep into their stated political positions, so as to warrant the vote
> > under the conditions I described.Anyone that values their life and their family needs to study the major difference between the Republican and Democrats on the issue of National Security.
>
> Democrats
> 1) Democrats have celebrated the release of Top Secret National Security
> Programs designed to stop terrorist.
They might have celebrated the release of details of Top Secret
National Security Programs
supposedly designed to stop terrorists (note correct english) but I
haven't heard of
them doing so. They certainly didn't celebrate the release of any
programs actually
designed to stop terrorists because the Bush team doesn't seem to have
any. Bugging
everyone who talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to
someone who
might possibly have met a terrorist once is not a program designed to
stop terrorism.
> 2) Democrats have called for the closing of the prisons that house
> terrorist. Democrats what to give each captured terrorist ACLU lawyers
> and their day in US court.
A few of them have and good for them. The fact that someone
allegedly did something bad
is no reason to remove their civil rights.
> 3) Democrats have betrayed and belittled the trust of our ally Nations.
Bush has done a lot more to do that. And exactly when did they do
so?
> 4) Democrats have contempt for the US military.
Actually no, but they should people too stupid to realised that
murder and torture
might just cause people to attack you in a tribal society really
deserve contempt.
People prepared to violate their oath to defend the constitution
deserve contempt and
punishment.
> 5) Are against the Patriot Act, needed to protect the USA.
No it isn't. There is bugger all evidence that the powers in the
Patriot Act were
needed to stop terrorism. By contrast things that are obviously needed
to stop terrorism
(that idiot Rice being fired for one) were not done because Bush
doesn't care about
terrorism.
> 6) Calls the wiretapping of Terrorist "wiretapping of Americans"
No liar they didn't. Wiretapping of anyone reasonably suspected of
being a terrorist
was already legal and warrants easy to gain. What (some) democrats
objected
to was warrantless wiretapping of americans, which is what it was and
what they
called it.
> 8) Against missile-defense system.
> 7) It seems that no National Security matters are safe in their hands.
And how are they safe in Bush's hands? He approved of torture, which
directly threatens retaliation
against both American military and civilian targets, gave uranium to
India, which naturally pushed
both China and Pakistan to build more bombs while making it more likely
Pakistan will fall to the
Islamists giving them nukes. He destroyed the intelligence services
ability to give good information,
good information being the most important resource in the War On Some
Terror. And of course he
made sure that nobody lost their job over 9/11.
> The far left has taken over the Democrat Party. Proof they dumped Joe
> Lieberman, a moderate in the DNC.
>
You misspelled "neocon loony".
> On other issues:
> 1) Democrats have promised to raise taxes.
And so have the Republicans, by spending. The increase might not
come now
but it will come eventually.
> 2) Continue their attack on the traditional Family.
Errrr.... no, allowing an alternative to a tradition is not attacking
it.
> 3) Wants to appoint Judges that will make Laws, rather than apply them.
>
And so do the republicans.
> Republican Party:
>
> 1) National defense is the main responsibility of government.
And yet they neglect it whenever there's an opportunity to pay back
their backers.
> 2) America must fight terrorism abroad in order to prevent it at home;
> history from 911 to today is proof this true.
Actually no, it proves the opposite, interventions in the middle east
are postively corelated with
terrorism against the US.
> 3) Border Security is National Security, started the making of a
> southern border fence.
BWWAAHHHHHH! Hey idiot the 9/11 guys flew in.
> 4) US military is a force for good against the War on Terror and should
> not be painted evil because of a few bad individuals.
When an institution seeks the power to torture it's evil. When it
routinely lies
that's a pretty good indication too.
> 5) Believe that schools should be held accountable for student progress
> through testing.
But actually holding them accountable to customers is a step too far
right?
> 6) Taxes should be low and fair.
And spending should be the opposite.
> 7) Equal opportunity for all (not forced equality by government).
> 8) Have helped bring the US to the lowest unemployment in decades.
And the highest debt.
> 9) Home ownership is at a all time high.
>
Yeah and how many people are on ARMs?
> Vote Republican !
Michael Price
> Here is part of a speech by Rudolf Hess in East Prussia in July 1934
Hess? This is the nutcase who was persuaded to fly to a hostile
country seeking treason by it's elite on the basis of British
Intelligence
scripted horoscopes right? And why the hell should we believe him?
>
> "Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
> soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
> the leadership of the state.
Oh yes, really good fortune, it got bombed almost into oblivion
and half was occupied by Stalin in a bad mood (although with
Stalin it's sometimes hard to tell).
> The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
> was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
> In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
> and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
> common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
> citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
> towered above the individual fate."
And if they had done the right thing and thought of their individual
fate the war would have been over by shortly after Christmas 1914.
Ayn Rand 1, Nazis 0.
Frank Clarke
<Y283h.2371$MO6.1393@trndny06>
>A stiff-necked refusal to live in the real world is what *you're* voting
>for.
It's called 'principle'.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> Hess? This is the nutcase who was persuaded to fly to a hostile
>country seeking treason by it's elite on the basis of British
>Intelligence
>scripted horoscopes right? And why the hell should we believe him?
The allies were hostile to everything right and good and to the
truth.
It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from Mein
Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The
best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his character and
strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility which his name
arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be
reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his
newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells
the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some
greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate
falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and
duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of honor
which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is nearest
to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does
not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no
account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted,
slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this
mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all
Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on
the part of this race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of
our members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which
I had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
Topaz
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
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.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says 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 Communists 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. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.
Topaz
By Dr. William Pierce
Today let's talk about some of the things that have changed in America
since September 11. I'm not thinking about all of the new rigamarole
at airports or about how Mr. Bush's campaign of cruise-missile
diplomacy in the Middle East is going or even about how opening the
mail each morning in media offices around the country and in
politicians' offices in Washington has become a much more exciting
operation than it used to be
when Ted Kaczynski was the only person putting dangerous things into
letters.
I'm more interested in the changes in the Politically Correct party
line laid down for the lemmings by the media. I'm interested in
changes in the way Americans view the world. And I'm interested in the
changed prospects for the future of America.
The most interesting thing about the new party line is its stupidity.
The Jews were caught by surprise last month, and they had to whip up
something in a hurry in order to deflect blame from Israel and from
the U.S. government's support for Israel. Apparently the best they
could do on a moment's notice is the explanation that Osama bin Laden
attacked us
simply because he hates our freedom and democracy. Since they first
cooked up that explanation they've refined it quite a bit. Both the
Foreign Ministry in Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, Israel's enormously powerful lobby in Washington, have been
circulating "talking papers" to their own people, to politicians, and
to everyone else who is likely to be making a public statement about
America's new war or about Washington's past policy in the Middle
East.
These "talking papers" tell people how to counter what the Jews call
Osama bin Laden's "lies" and also how to respond to anyone who
suggests that our government's support of Israel might have had
something to do with the September 11 attack. The papers warn people
never to raise this subject, but if someone else insists on talking
about it, it is to be
countered with the explanation that support for Israel had nothing at
all to do with the attack, that we would have been attacked even if we
weren't supporting Israel, and that the only reason for the attack is
Osama bin Laden's irrational hatred of America's freedom and
democracy.
I believe that it's clear that many people actually believe this
nonsense, judging by the number of cars with red, white, and blue
ribbons tied to their antennas. But these are the people who believe
everything Tom Brokaw or their beloved Big Brother in the White House
tells them. If George Bush came on TV and told them with that
mock-solemn expression of his that a Martian invasion force had just
landed, that the Martians were demanding one million sacrificial
virgins as their price for not destroying Hollywood and Washington,
and that U.S. Army troops would be going door to door to collect
virgins, the folks with the ribbons on their antennas would believe
it, and they would prepare to hand over any virgins in their
households. They would consider it their patriotic duty. The party
line may change from time to time, but lemmings never change.
Well, the lemmings may believe that U.S. support for Israel had
nothing to do with the September 11 attack or with the anthrax-laden
letters now going around, but no one else believes it. Last week the
media bosses were kicking themselves because they had let the text of
a statement Osama bin Laden had made be published in the United
States. They said that they had made a mistake in putting this
statement before the American public. They wouldn't publish any
further Osama bin Laden statements, they said, because the statements
might contain secret instructions for his operatives.
Everyone I've spoken with laughed at that excuse. In his last
statement Osama bin Laden said that Americans would not be secure and
would have no peace of mind as long as Palestinians were not secure in
their own land. That's the sort of powerful and simple message that
even Sally Soccer Mom and Joe Sixpack might understand, and that's
what the Jewish media bosses don't want the public to hear. They're
not worried about secret instructions; they're worried about the
lemmings figuring out what's going on.
Actually, I think there's very little danger of that. And really, the
changes I'm more interested in are in the outlook of the minority of
the population able to think for itself: the minority that doesn't
believe whatever Tom Brokaw says. You know, I've been talking to this
minority for years-decades, actually-warning them about the
consequences of letting their government get out of control, warning
them of the consequences of permitting the Jews of Hollywood and New
York to run our country through their control of our mass media,
warning them of the consequences of continuing to sit on their hands
and keep their mouths shut from fear of being denounced by the media
as "anti-Semites" or "racists."
And I wasn't having as much success as I wanted at getting them to pay
attention and change their ways. Many of those who listened wouldn't
do anything because what I was warning them about didn't seem quite
real. Despite all the changes they could see around them-the
deterioration of our cities and our schools, the darkening of the
racial complexion of America, the trashing of our culture by the mass
media, the increasingly
obvious efforts of the Jewish media bosses to persuade our young women
that they should bed down with non-Whites-despite everything, they
themselves managed to remain comfortable and economically secure, so
the things I was warning them about didn't seem quite real. They had
convinced themselves that they were above it all, that they could
continue to watch the destruction of their country and their people
all around them, and it would never affect them personally: that they
could remain secure and comfortable while everything around them went
to hell. Osama bin Laden jolted some of them awake on September 11:
some of those whose attention I hadn't been able to catch with my own
warnings. He convinced some of them that what they had been observing
going on around them for years was in fact real: that continuing to
ignore the degenerative processes promoted by the media and the
government and hoping for the best really wasn't a good strategy for
personal survival. In particular, he convinced many members of the
thinking minority that losing control of our government really is a
serious matter, that
permitting our government to be used by the Jews against their
neighbors in the Middle East-and also against the genuine interests of
the American people-could have real consequences at home.
I have the feeling that many of these thinking people are paying at
least a little more attention now to the things we've been talking
about here every week. The fact that the number of people who download
these broadcasts from my Web site each Saturday has nearly doubled
since September 11 is a pretty good indication of this, I believe.
Just as I'm getting more hate mail from the red-white-and-blue-ribbon
types, I'm also getting more thoughtful responses from the people who
understand and care. Which is to say, I think I have an audience now
that not only is bigger but also is more attentive and responsive.
That is really important.
I'm not discouraged by the fact that the attentive and responsive
people still constitute only a minority of a minority. I'm encouraged
by the fact that the attentive people now make up a larger minority of
the thinking portion of the population than they did before September
11. Important things always are done by minorities. Majorities don't
make
decisions; individuals do; small minorities do. History is made by
active minorities. Sometimes an active minority may use the passive
majority as a tool or a weapon, but the minority always acts in accord
with its own will.
What's important is which minority is making the decisions, which
minority is active at any particular moment. For at least the past 60
years it's been the wrong minority, an alien minority that is
implacably hostile to our people. If we are to survive, that must
change. Our minority must become active instead. Our minority must
grow to include more of the thinking portion of our population. And
that is happening now. That's been happening since September 11.
The people who understand and care have been forced to begin paying
attention. I have a very strong premonition that there will be other
things in the reasonably near future that will make them pay even
closer attention. The Bush government, just like the Clinton
government before it, thinks that it can stop terrorism with cruise
missiles and smart bombs. But just think for a moment: whether Osama
bin Laden survives the Bush government's current war against Israel's
enemies in the Middle East or not, he already has become immortal. In
the eyes of Muslims he has been elevated to a status in heaven
alongside Mohammed. His name will be praised, and stories will be told
about him around campfires throughout the Muslim world for countless
generations to come, long
after the Bush government has gone and been forgotten. Cruise missiles
can't take Osama bin Laden's immortality away from him. There's
nothing the Bush government can do to diminish his glory in the Muslim
world. In fact, the more cruise missiles and smart bombs the United
States unleashes on the Muslim world, the higher will Osama bin
Laden's esteem rise; the more will his strike against the United
States seem justified to his fellow Muslims.
Don't be fooled by the tame "house Muslims" the media bosses have been
trotting out to explain to the lemmings that violence is abhorrent to
"real Muslims." The real Muslims are the ones rioting against the
government in Pakistan now. The real Muslims are the ones singing
Osama bin Laden's praises now. And there will be no shortage of other
young Muslims lusting for a share in his glory, lusting to have their
praises sung around campfires too. Cruise missiles don't frighten
them. There are enough of them already in this country to keep things
jumping, thanks to the government's insane immigration policy of
recent decades. The anthrax-laced letters that have been going around
all were mailed from inside this country. And anthrax is by no means
the nastiest thing that can be mailed in an envelope. The media won't
even mention the biological warfare agents the government is really
afraid of, because they don't want to give anyone ideas.
The fact is, terrorism has been made much more fashionable since
September 11, and the stakes have been raised. Simple truck bombs
won't get much respect in the future, but I have a suspicion that
we'll see a few more of them anyway. And I suspect that we'll also see
people trying to outdo Osama bin Laden's September 11 televised
extravaganza. The
government and the media suspect the same thing, and they're
frightened. That's why they're trying so desperately to stifle dissent
and keep everyone pledging allegiance to the flag.
At the University of California in Los Angeles a library worker,
53-year-old Jonnie Hargis, has been suspended without pay because he
sent out an e-mail letter criticizing U.S. support for Israel's
aggression. The university administration explained that it has a
policy against using university computers for political messages, but
Hargis, who has worked at the UCLA library for 22 years, pointed out
that no one who has been sending out pro-Israel and pro-war messages
has been punished.
There are similar situations at other universities around the country.
Jews and neo-conservatives post belligerent, bloodthirsty messages
calling for the annihilation of all of the Jews' enemies in the Middle
East, including Iraq and Iran as well as Afghanistan. Anyone who calls
instead for eliminating the cause of the September 11 attack-that is,
for stopping the blind support by the U.S. government of Israel's
aggression-is censured and threatened with expulsion or with being
fired.
There are still people around who can remember how it was at our
universities during the Vietnam war. That was when treason ruled on
campuses. Students burned their draft cards and put up Viet Cong flags
and posters of Ho Chi Minh in their dormitories. Jewish activists in
groups such as Students for a Democratic Society organized pro-Viet
Cong
rallies on campuses. Professors encouraged this activity, and
administrators didn't interfere, citing free speech.
The switch to red, white, and blue ribbons and saluting the flag came
rather suddenly last month, and a lot of thinking people understand
why it came. They understand that it is when America is involved in a
war to promote Jewish interests that pledging allegiance to the flag
suddenly is declared fashionable. When Israel's welfare is threatened,
Jews, ordinarily noted for their cynicism and irreverence, suddenly
put their hands over their hearts and begin singing The Star-Spangled
Banner, and they glare at anyone who isn't singing loudly enough. And
people who make the mistake of asking why get fired or suspended. But
you know, firing people or suspending people who have dissenting
opinions doesn't go down well with the independent thinkers. And I'll
guarantee you:
there will be a lot more dissent before this war is over. And the
Jewish media won't be able to hide it all.
What we are beginning to see now is a sharpening division between the
Jews, their bought politicians, and the "I pledge allegiance,"
authoritarian types on one side, and everyone else on the other side.
We also saw a division, along different lines, during the Vietnam war,
with the authoritarians and the Jews on opposite sides instead of the
same
side. I believe that the division this time will develop faster and
become sharper.
I don't know how the war itself will develop. It was clear before it
began that the U.S. military machine is quite capable of flattening
Afghanistan or any other Third World country without suffering any
significant losses to its own personnel, simply because we can hit
them from a distance with a great deal of destructive power, and they
don't have the means to hit back-except through what we call
"terrorism." It is certain that there will be more terrorism,
although, of course, I cannot predict the form it will take or its
magnitude.
I can predict, however, that the media and the politicians will
denounce it as "cowardly" and will act as if America has been wronged:
that whatever form the next blow against America takes and wherever it
comes from, it will be declared "unprovoked." And I can predict that
the polls published by the media will continue to show nearly every
American
wildly enthusiastic about the war, even as the opposition to the war
grows.
One interesting thing about the opposition this time is that it is
growing both among the Gentile Left and among genuine patriots. During
the Vietnam war the members of the Gentile Left all were on the Jewish
side. Despite the current agreement between leftists and patriots on
the single issue of ending support for Israel and limiting the war in
the
Middle East, I don't see much chance of real collaboration between
these two elements. The Gentile Left is still hopelessly confused on
such essential issues as race and feminism and homosexuality and
permissiveness. But the war is indeed driving a wedge between Jews and
Gentile leftists-a deeper wedge than that driven by the development of
Jewish neo-conservatism after the Vietnam war, and for that we should
be thankful.
There may be other hopeful developments as well. The assassination in
Jerusalem this week of one of Israel's most bloodthirsty Jewish
militants by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
certainly was a welcome move. Until now all of the assassins have been
Jews, and all of the victims have been Palestinians. It's too soon to
know whether
or not this one act of retribution against the Israeli leadership will
be followed by other successful blows, but it may be that the events
of recent weeks have emboldened the Palestinians to act with more
imagination and enterprise than before.
Looking ahead a bit, there are several signs of hope here on our own
home front. The heightened sense of reality among non-lemmings, the
lessening of their sense of detachment, the stronger realization that
they cannot survive by continuing to sit on their hands and watch the
Jews destroy the world around them- -- this is the single most
important consequence of recent events. This, together with the
growing alienation between Gentile leftists and Jews, leaves the Jews
in a weaker position than they have been in a long time. They will
crack their whips more frantically than before, trying to keep
everyone in line, but the principal effect of that will be to generate
even more resentment against them.
Things are a bit brittle now. A few dozen more anthrax cases, another
truck bomb in a well chosen location, and substantial changes could
take place in a hurry: a stock market panic, martial law measures by
the Bush government, and a sharpening of the debate as to how we got
ourselves get into this mess in the first place. As the debate
sharpens, the Jews and their collaborators will pull out all of the
stops in an effort to stifle it, but I don't think that even a
declaration of martial law can stifle it now. Too many people already
smell the stink in Washington. Too many people already understand on
whose hands is the blood of 6,000 innocent Americans who died last
month. Too many people understand the true motivation behind the
current war against Israel's enemies in the
Middle East. The genie is out of the bottle now, and not even Mr.
Bush's new anti-terrorism agency-what does he call it? -- the Office
of Homeland Security? -- not even this new Federal agency can put it
back in the bottle.
It's a strange thing: in a novel I wrote more than 12 years ago - the
title is Hunter-I talked about the formation of a new anti-terrorism
agency, separate from the FBI. And I pointed out that the principal
aim of the new agency would not be to protect the public from
terrorism, but to protect the government from an increasingly restless
and disillusioned public: a sort of modern Praetorian Guard. I think
that we'll be seeing more developments in that direction in the next
few months, with the timing depending upon when the next surprise
comes and its magnitude.
Of course, I don't know what will happen next to shatter already
jangled nerves, but it is likely that something will happen. My advice
to responsible patriots now is this: Expect a surprise, and remain
calm when it comes. But don't wait for it to come to raise your voice.
Speak out now. Don't be intimidated by the mindless yahoos waving
their flags
or by the government or by the media. If you point out calmly and in a
reasoned way who is responsible for what happened to America last
month you will have more people agreeing with you than you might
imagine. If you call for your fellow Americans to join you in
regaining control of their government, the response will be greater
than at any time in recent years.
Thanks for being with me again today.
Topaz
<m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:59:20 GMT, "JT" <a@b.c> wrote:
><Y283h.2371$MO6.1393@trndny06>
>
>>A stiff-necked refusal to live in the real world is what *you're* voting
>>for.
>
>It's called 'principle'.
>
Not only that but if people vote for third parties it encourages them
to keep trying. This way someday we could have more choices than
democrats or republicans.
JT
> keep trying.
I agree. But I also keep in mind that Ross Perot's candidacy ultimately
supplied us with 8 years of The Presidents Clinton.
Try voting according to this principle of Ms. Rand's: "We can evade
reality. We cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
- JT
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jaqsk2l53gphds2j6...@4ax.com...
JT
> homosexual
> perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
I apologize in advance for my sophmoric need to mention this, but there is a
town in Massachusetts called Aquinnah.
They changed the name of the town recently.
It was originally known as Gay Head.
No, I'm not kidding...
- JT
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:r5qsk2d70uhncpfo8...@4ax.com...
Michael Price
> On 5 Nov 2006 03:16:41 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Hess? This is the nutcase who was persuaded to fly to a hostile
> >country seeking treason by it's elite on the basis of British
> >Intelligence
> >scripted horoscopes right? And why the hell should we believe him?
>
> The allies were hostile to everything right and good and to the
> truth.
Well no, but that's beside the point, the point is we are talking
about
said astrologer following nutcase right?
>
> It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
> liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
> controlled the media. Why don't they?
They do. In fact whenever someone comes up with the "Jews control
the media" line the Jews tend to compare him to Hitler or the Nazis.
You're
lying when you say they don't tell people that he believed that, in
fact
they mention it quite a lot.
> Here are some quotes from Mein
> Kampf:
>
Quotes from a proven liar and failure aren't proof.
Bama Brian
>> Not only that but if people vote for third parties it encourages them to
>> keep trying.
>
> I agree. But I also keep in mind that Ross Perot's candidacy ultimately
> supplied us with 8 years of The Presidents Clinton.
That's where you're wrong. Exit polls after the H. Ross attempts showed
that equal numbers of disaffected Repubs and Demos were voting for
Perot. IOW, Clinton would still have won - but Perot came a lot closer
than the RepubOcrats thought was possible.
> Try voting according to this principle of Ms. Rand's: "We can evade
> reality. We cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
Vote for the best possible outcome; IOW vote your principles, no matter
what chance you think your candidate may have. Voting for that lesser
evil is still voting for an evil.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
JT
This is where I came in, and I don't feel like repeating myself. Toil away,
I hope you and I don't both suffer Democrat government if your vote and the
votes of others who won't live in reality may have changed things.
- JT
"Bama Brian" <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hiK3h.3623$ig4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Topaz
>> Not only that but if people vote for third parties it encourages them to
>> keep trying.
>
>I agree. But I also keep in mind that Ross Perot's candidacy ultimately
>supplied us with 8 years of The Presidents Clinton.
What is the difference between having Clinton or a Republican in the
White House? Maybe Clinton is openly a liberal. But Republicans are
false hope and there is no real difference that I can see.
>
>Try voting according to this principle of Ms. Rand's: "We can evade
>reality. We cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."
>
Here is the reality:
"BOTH Republicans AND Democrats are hypocrites and cowards, because
both have sold out America and the American gross domestic product
(GDP) to Israel. The United States does not exist anymore as a
sovereign entity and all our energy, all our societal efforts are
dedicated to supporting Israel first, Israel second, and Israel third.
America is a Jew-ocracy that is run for the Jews, by the Jews, and of
the Jews, because America is a Jewish owned corporation, not a
"democracy." Votes don't matter much here in the USA because
Washington runs on money, not on votes, and Democratic presidential
candidate Senator Hillary Clinton is just as sold out to the Israeli
lobby, AIPAC (the America Israel Public Affairs Committee), as
Republican presidential candidate Senator Bill Frist. Former
president Bill Clinton was sold out, Jimmy Carter was sold out and
later admitted it after he left office, Ronald Reagan was sold out,
all American presidents were sold out going back to JFK…
All our Middle East problems, our vast national debt, our collapsing
economy, and our collapsing standard of living are all directly the
result of our blind support for Israel's illegal ethnic cleansing of
Palestinians from Palestine. Bush used Israeli torture techniques on
Moslems, our leaders have let Israeli agents here in the USA illegally
spy on American citizens, we ignore UN Resolutions that tell Israel
to go retreat to their 1967 borders as international law mandates. We
routinely block the United Nations from taking action against Israel's
illegal activities. We gave Israel plutonium and helped them build
their atomic and hydrogen bombs, we shoveled Israel over 140 billion
in foreign aid since 1950, and we have wasted 3 to 4 trillion dollars
in total on the cult of Zionism since 1950 through the cost of illegal
wars, oil embargoes, foreign aid, and the cost of the strategic oil
reserve. Frankly, the Jews are bleeding America dry and no one is
courageous enough to stand up to the Jews because Jews in America are
the exact equivalent of George Orwell's BIG BROTHER. Jews tell us all
what to do, what we are allowed to think, and what we are allowed to
speak. Jews control our government, dominate our media, and crush any
opposition by slandering those with legitimate and provable complaints
as "anti-Semites."
It must be great to be above criticism and to control the stupid and
dull Christian masses and laugh at them behind their backs and even to
their faces and get no response other than more feet licking, bowing,
and kow towing. George Bush is a useful idiot, a water carrier for
the Jews just as Hillary Clinton will be if elected president. Both
Iraq wars were started for the Jews and by the Jews. All our
politicians are a disgrace and we will never regain our sovereignty,
solve our foreign policy problems, or balance our budget until we end
our slavish allegiance to the immoral, racist, murdering, torturing,
lying, stealing, manipulating cult nation of Israel.
The Holocaust business feeds the Zionist cult and Hollywood has
deified Jews while vilifying Moslems… Our nation is a lying,
hypocritical mess and the world hates us because the world knows we
are a nation of morons run by Jews. Where are the brave and honest
Americans who speak with one face, not two? Americans are defeated,
weak, foolish, and can't even speak out because they are scared like
little girls, unable to even speak the word "Jew" unless in praise or
on bended knees. Imagine if Catholics or Moonies or the Mafia had that
much control in America! Jews are not above the law and Jews can be
opposed for their real world crimes just like anyone else. Our brains
are frozen by decades of media programming and propaganda so that now
we cannot even speak the "J word." Political correctness, which was
invented by Jews as a form of mind control, prevents Americans from
being fully human. We are a nation of slaves, licking Jewish feet day
after day and we never get tired of it. It's a sad and pathetic
situation and we are a sad and pathetic people who deserve the
contempt of the world because we have no backbone and no honesty.
The United Kingdom is little better than the USA because Tony Blair is
a rabid Christian Zionist himself and most of his top advisors are
Jews. Much of Europe is sold out and controlled by Jews and the cult
of Zionism has Western leaders by the testicles, frozen and unable to
fight back. Now is the time to speak up, to fight back, and to do it
legally, responsibly, and effectively. Just decide that from now on
Jews have no special privileges in your brain and that you can
criticize Jews just like Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Moonies,
or any other group. Jews act as a 90% unified group, commit crimes as
a 90% unified group, and control America as a 90% unified group, and
thus deserve to be criticized as a 90% unified group. Being able to
criticize those who do harm is what democracy means and is exactly
what freedom of thought means. Become a fully functioning human being
and not just another mind controlled blob of useless DNA!"
inkyblacks
Topaz
wrote:
> Well no, but that's beside the point, the point is we are talking
>about
>said astrologer following nutcase right?
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.
After the death of Hindenburg on 2 August 1934, Hitler called a
referendum to approve his assumption of full power as Fuehrer and
Chancellor of Germany. 90% of the voters approved Hitler's increased
powers.
Rudolf Hess gave this speech on 14 August 1934, shortly before the 19
August referendum:
"National Socialists! Fellow German citizens!
I have rarely given a speech as difficult as this one. It is a
challenge to attempt to prove the good of something as obvious as
Hitler's assumption of Hindenburg's position. For fourteen years I
have been convinced that he is the only man able to master Germany's
fate. This conviction has grown over the years, as the original
emotional feeling found new support in endless ways that have
demonstrated Adolf Hitler's remarkable leadership abilities. It is
hard for me, now that I see the realization of fourteen years of
hopes, to gather the various reasons that explain how Adolf Hitler has
become the highest and only Fuehrer of the German people.
Whether through good luck or providence, I found in the summer of 1920
a small room in the Sterneckerbräu in which one Adolf Hitler, whom I
had never heard of, gave a speech to a few dozen people. His clear,
logical and persuasive speech laid out a new political program. This
man expressed my own vague feelings as a veteran of the war, making
clear what was necessary for the nation's salvation. He outlined a new
Germany from the heart of a front soldier, a Germany that I suddenly
realized was the one that had to become reality!
This man had driving passion, persuasive logic, and astonishing
knowledge. A powerful faith streamed from him - I had never
experienced its like. What was most remarkable was that I and the
other entirely rational members of the audience did not laugh as he in
all seriousness explained that the flag of the new movement for which
he and his movement fought would one day fly over the Reichstag, over
the Palace of Berlin, indeed over every German building. It would be
the victorious symbol of a new, honorable, nationalist and socialist
Germany.
At that moment in the Sterneckbräu there were really only two
possibilities. Either I would leave this fool immediately, or - as I
did - accept the conviction: This man will save Germany, if anyone
can!
I pledged my conviction to a friend, and on that very evening become
the most passionate admirer and loyal follower of this Fuehrer.
In the long years that followed, the rest of the world laughed and
mocked us, and the newspapers spread their poison and scorn about this
"madman," but nothing could shake my faith and readiness to give my
all for this man, so long as he did not lose faith in himself or his
mission.
I remember well even today a visit I made to Hitler in the small room
he sublet in Munich. He raged against a Munich newspaper that mocked
him and his idea. "I will show them whether I am to be taken seriously
or not," he exclaimed.
Still, his opponents did not take him seriously then, or for many
years after. Luckily so! For the most serious error his enemies made
was that they did not recognize early enough what a danger he was to
them. They missed the opportunity to destroy him and his small
following when it was still possible. The mighty tree of today, able
to withstand any storm, was then only a tender plant.
But like so many other things in the Führer's life, fate probably
determined that those around him were blind enough to lose valuable
time by fighting him only with ridicule. Providence, of which the
Fuehrer often speaks with such faith, preserved him and his movement
from destruction, preserving both for its purposes.
I knew Adolf Hitler as he walked through the streets of Munich in a
shabby gray coat, often hungry, accompanied only by a few friends,
posting flyers. He was armed only with a thick oak walking stick,
which he only too often had to use when his opponents from the then
USPD, or the Spartakus Bund, or some middle class party found the
primitive truths on these flyers unpleasant.
I can still remember how he, at the head of his "whole party" broke up
a meeting of Bavarian separatists, always putting himself in the way
of the greatest danger. Astonishingly, amidst all the daily tasks and
annoyances, he never lost sight of the larger goal. He always
presented his vision vividly to his followers.
In later years I saw this man during the triumphs and defeats of his
movement. At the moments of the worst defeats when his followers often
were near desperation, it was always he who restored the faith of the
doubters, gave them new enthusiasm, new faith. I was with him in the
Landsberg prison, when all seemed lost and his movement disintegrated
as his subordinates fought. I remember when there was the danger that
his parole would be canceled and he would have to stay behind bars for
another four or five years! The chances of realizing his ideas seemed
absolutely nonexistent then, but at that very moment he laid out the
methods he would use to rebuild the movement under the new
circumstances and by rejecting illegal methods. Then as always he
proved himself a master at adapting to new situations, in breaking
radically with methods he saw as outdated or ineffective.
With the certainty of a great leader, in the middle of what seemed to
be the total collapse of all his efforts, he explained to me that he
would need several years to rebuild the movement, and that it would be
seven years before he had the power to force his enemies to bend to
his will. That was in the winter of 1924/25. Seven years later it was
1932!
That was the year in which the forces of the past attempted in vain to
stop the final victory of National Socialism, the year in which every
attempt to stop Adolf Hitler and his movement failed, in which in fact
every shameless lying attack worked in the end to his advantage.
The Fuehrer said more often than in the past: "The others can do what
they want. When an idea is right, when it is fought for consistently,
when the movement that fights for it is well organized, and when the
leadership is determined to go its way regardless of the difficulties,
one day with mathematical certainty it will be victorious! The longer
they succeed in holding back our victory, the more powerful it will
be! It will fall into our laps like overripe fruit!"
These words from the decisive year 1932 explain the sudden and total
National Socialist seizure of power in 1933, which so surprised the
rest of the world.
Looking back I am convinced that our delayed victory, the fourteen
years that sometimes seemed to us as if they would never end, was
fate's way of preparing our people for the seizure of power. It was a
necessity of fate, just as the early death of the Fuehrer's parents
acquainted him with bitter poverty. That poverty forced him to become
a construction worker. He came to understand the poverty of his fellow
human beings and the lot of the "proletariat." The daily struggle for
survival in the primitive cultural conditions of the era gave the
Führer a deep understanding of his fellow working class citizens.
It was also a necessity of fate that he served at the Front during the
World War, for he learned a contempt of danger. He became hard. The
war brought him together with all levels of the German people and
showed him the destructiveness of class and rank. Most importantly, it
taught him to understand the people and to speak their language.
The revolutionary year 1918 was a necessity of fate for Adolf Hitler,
for despite its criminal leadership it cleared away relics of the past
that later would have created difficulties for the National Socialist
Revolution. And the revolt of 1918 brought signs of collapse and
revealed with naked clarity the international forces and their
destructive effects on Germany in a way that created the psychological
prerequisites that enabled the hard measures of the later National
Socialist government to succeed.
The attempt to seize power in November 1923 was ordained by fate, just
as was its bloody collapse. If the Fuehrer had not acted then, the
masses would later have lost faith in him as a Fuehrer when he
constantly called for patience and postponed the seizure of power.
Only his willingness to act resolutely when necessary, as demonstrated
in November 1923, provided the proof that he would when necessary take
the most forceful course. It proved that he chose to renounce force in
the years before 1933 not because he was a coward. And National
Socialism could not have taken power in 1923, since the people were
not yet ready for National Socialism, nor was National Socialism ready
to lead the people. What was obvious to everyone in Germany in 1933
would have seemed arrogance in 1923. The supporters of the parties of
that day had not yet had sufficient time to recognize the weaknesses
of their leaders.
The narrowest chance of fate prevented the Führer from entering the
government in 1932. He would have been joined with men who inwardly
were still his enemies and would have caused great damage as members
of the government.
And surely it was providence that preserved the life of the old Field
Marshall and Reich President to enable his good name and protecting
hand to guard the young National Socialist government until Adolf
Hitler's abilities as a leader had been proven to everyone at home and
abroad, until his reputation was sufficient to assume the full
leadership of the Reich.
Providence has clearly been at work in Adolf Hitler's life. Only so
can we understand how this man, the son of a minor official, withstood
hunger and privation and fought unaided powerful enemies in the press
and business, powerful parties at home and abroad, to become the
Führer of one of the great nations of the world, chancellor of the
German Reich, holder of the office of Reich President. This is a
miracle without precedent in the history of the world. In the midst of
bitter need, a people finds the man to rescue it. There is a force of
history at work here which we still do not understand.
The need of our people was great. A great man was required to meet it.
Providence gave him the gifts and the strength to move on both in good
times and bad, enabling him over the course of time to reach his goal:
the salvation of Germany!
Providence works through in a way both inexplicable yet clear to all
who have the good fortune to be near to him. How often has he said to
me: "I know that my decision or action is correct. I cannot explain at
the moment why, but I feel that it is right and the future will prove
it so." Invariably the course of events proved that the inexplicable
feelings of the Führer led him down a sure path.
The great historian Treitschke held the ability to see things
correctly as the decisive ability of a statesman, more important even
than talent. What leader has ever had this ability more than Adolf
Hitler? The proof is in his speeches, even those from 1920. Rarely
have political conditions and developments been predicted more
accurately, seldom have conclusions been drawn more clearly, thanks to
his ability to see the fundamental nature of the most difficult and
complicated things.
The "simple understanding" of the genius is able to see the essential
and the obvious.
The Fuehrer adds to the ability to see correctly, which the historian
sees as more critical than talent, not only talent, but also genius.
The ability to see correctly, along with genius, to which must be
added the workings of providence, gives us an explanation for the
miracle that has happened before our eyes in the past few years,
particularly since Hitler's assumption of power.
Is not the transformation of our people a miracle! It shows itself in
its return to its essence, to the sources of its strength, in its
reawakening pride and honor, in its will to self assertion in the
world, in its ability to free itself from international poisons and
from signs of corruption in all areas of life! Is it a miracle that
Adolf Hitler won the battle against unemployment in so short a time?
That he put people to work to meet daily needs as well as to advance
culture? The great highways, canals and buildings will proclaim to
coming generations the Hitler Era of the German people. Is it not a
miracle that a nation once divided by class and rank, divided by petty
state pride in Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and elsewhere-now works
together with mutual understanding for the great common tasks and for
the preservation of the nation and its people?
As I said when I began, I cannot explain why Hitler, and only he, can
be the Fuehrer. Who could suggest someone worthier and more able to
fill the office of Reich President, the highest leader of the Reich?
Someone might say that it is not good to put all power in one hand.
Let me reply that in a difficult time the Romans gave full power to a
young and capable leader - and the Romans knew something about
governing! They knew that "men make history." They knew that in times
of crisis, strong personalities must guide the state, personalities
bound to the living essence of their people.
Someone may say that it is not good to put all power in one hand,
since Adolf Hitler might use his authority arbitrarily and
thoughtlessly!
To that I can only say: The conscience of a moral personality is a far
greater protection against the misuse of an office than is the
supervision of parliament or the separation of powers. I know no one
who has a stronger conscience, or is more true to his people, than
Adolf Hitler.
Over the years I have seem him struggle to make difficult decisions,
always checking again and again with the experts in the field until he
was certain that his decision was absolutely correct. I know how many
sleepless nights his decision to take Germany out of the League of
Nations cost him, how he listened to all who had objections. I know
that he was unable to rest until he had refuted them by clear logic.
Only then did he decide, and accepted the full responsibility.
The Führer's highest court is his conscience and his responsibility to
his people and to history.
He will also from time to time allow the people itself to pass
judgment on his general policy. This will regularly reaffirm his
leadership.
He knows that both his honor and his work are at risk. He cannot pass
the responsibility for his decisions to irresponsible parliamentary
majorities, as do the statesmen of all other nations. That also means
that his freedom of action is not restricted or watered down by
parliamentary bodies or other forces. This above all is why in
desperate times people and nations need an absolute leader - assuming
he possesses the necessary abilities - and why such a leader can be
necessary to the continued existence of the government and people.
Treitschke said that absolute leadership is either the best or the
worst form of government, depending on the personality of the leader.
We know that Adolf Hitler is both born and called to be a leader, and
that he has shown himself through all his actions to be a morally
upright person. As sole ruler he is the best possible form of
government for Germany - and Heaven knows that in its current crisis
Germany needs the best possible form of government!
A Fuehrer whose goal is to serve his people is in times of crisis a
better guarantee of peace to other nations than is a parliamentary
majority, which may lack the will at the critical moment to keep its
people from stumbling into misfortune, as Lloyd George suggested the
nations stumbled into the World War. In recent weeks, Adolf Hitler has
made rapid and firm decisions advancing the cause of peace in Europe
that demonstrate his statesmanship. Those states who today oppose us
may not be willing to admit it, but history will.
German citizens! Consider with all seriousness the international
significance of the referendum on 19 August. Talk with everyone in
your circle of acquaintances-family members, workmates, relatives,
with everyone you come in contact with. Remember that the world is
watching to see if a united German people will be loyal to its
Fuehrer.
Hundreds of thousands of journalists are waiting to announce the
expected collapse of National Socialism to their readers. They will do
this if even a few less Germans go to the polls than did on 12
November of last year. They hope for a collapse of National Socialism,
for they know this would mean the collapse of Germany.
By voting yes on 19 August, the German people will demonstrate to the
world that we see in Adolf Hitler the Fuehrer given to us by
providence. We Germans approve of what he has done at home and abroad
for Germany and trust his decisions for the future. Germany sees Adolf
Hitler as Hindenburg's proper successor. The entire German people now
gives Hitler the name of honor that the National Socialist movement
has long given him: the Fuehrer!
This word is more that a title, it is a confession and a certainty: My
Fuehrer!
Furthermore, the entire German people says to the world: Adolf Hitler
is and will remain our Fuehrer, because his policies are the policies
of the entire German nation. His rule guarantees Germany's stability.
Through him and his movement, Germany has become a unified Reich.
Since we want to remain a united German Reich, we want Adolf Hitler at
our head. Since we know that power struggles between individuals or
interest groups are unthinkable and impossible under his leadership,
we want him as Germany's leader.
Through him, Fate realizes its purpose: Saving Germany from the hunger
of misery of Bolshevism. We firmly believe that saving Germany from
Bolshevism also rescued Europe from the danger of red annihilation. We
Germans see it as our duty to thank Fate by affirming this man as the
Fuehrer of Germany.
One more thing the German people want to say to the world on 19
August: We want the work begun in Hitler's name to continue: the
battle against unemployment, the freeing of our conscience, the moral
renewal of Germany's youth, the strengthening of our sense of honor.
We Germans know that Hitler wants what we all want: economic equality
with the other nations of the world, the political and military peace
with the other peoples of the world, a return to prosperity and
culture after decades of decline and decay.
This we say to our Fuehrer on 19 August: We are bound to you in an
indissoluble unity in the fight for Germany's future. With you, we
long for the preservation of peace and are prepared to follow your
command to defend our people's peace.
We are proud and happy to have one of history's greats, a son of our
people, among us during our life times. The yes that we give affirms
his leadership to the world, and thanks him at the same time.
German workers! I speak particularly to you. Be proud that you may on
19 August affirm as leader of Germany a man of the German working
class. Be proud that you may symbolically say to one of your own on 19
August: We want you, Adolf Hitler, as German Chancellor and German
Reich President, you, a German worker! Where once kings, Kaisers and
presidents ruled Germany, now by our will and the will of the German
people stands for the first time a German worker. He is a worker who
knows how hard the life of his former comrades still is, those who
must struggle daily for their basic needs, and whose goal is above all
to improve their lot as quickly as possible.
My fellow German citizens! You will vote yes for Adolf Hitler! And if
you are asked why you voted for him, you will be able to answer:
We voted for Adolf Hitler:
Because he is the man who from his experiences as a Front soldier
developed a world view that is the foundation for all that is
happening in Germany.
Because his fifteen year struggle against a hostile world is a model
of strength and courage.
Because he always acts at the right moment, thereby showing that he is
a heroic leader.
Because he does nothing for himself, but everything for Germany and
for the future of his people.
Because he has given all of us a new faith in Germany.
Because he has given our lives meaning once more by showing us why we
Germans are on the earth.
Because he is the instrument of the will of a higher power.
In sum, because he is a true Fuehrer!
With our yes votes, we Germans will say on 19 August:
To you, our Fuehrer, we pledge our loyalty - Adolf Hitler, we believe
in you!
>>
>> It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
>> liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
>> controlled the media. Why don't they?
>
> They do. In fact whenever someone comes up with the "Jews control
>the media" line the Jews tend to compare him to Hitler or the Nazis.
>You're
>lying when you say they don't tell people that he believed that, in
>fact
>they mention it quite a lot.
>
>> Here are some quotes from Mein
>> Kampf:
>>
> Quotes from a proven liar and failure aren't proof.
I haven't heard the Jewish controlled media say that. And here is
more proof that they are the liars:
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
Michael Price
Topaz wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 00:05:54 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Well no, but that's beside the point, the point is we are talking
> > about said astrologer following nutcase right?
>
> The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
> lie.
>
that
we are talking about and you are quoting a certifiable nutcase for
support.
> After the death of Hindenburg on 2 August 1934, Hitler called a
> referendum to approve his assumption of full power as Fuehrer and
> Chancellor of Germany. 90% of the voters approved Hitler's increased
> powers.
Yeah, sure they did. > >>
> >> It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
> >> liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
> >> controlled the media. Why don't they?
> >
> > They do. In fact whenever someone comes up with the "Jews control
> >the media" line the Jews tend to compare him to Hitler or the Nazis.
> >You're
> >lying when you say they don't tell people that he believed that, in
> >fact
> >they mention it quite a lot.
> >
> >> Here are some quotes from Mein
> >> Kampf:
> >>
> > Quotes from a proven liar and failure aren't proof.
>
> I haven't heard the Jewish controlled media say that.
Then you obviously haven't been reading much of it.
> And here is more proof that they are the liars:
>
>
> Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
> Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
> in favor of big lies.
And he was.
Frank Clarke
<VeQ3h.8956$sw6.5971@trndny08>
>> Voting for that lesser evil is still voting for an evil.
>
>This is where I came in, and I don't feel like repeating myself.
Truth does not cease to be truth because we find it unpalatable.
Topaz
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew -- as
almost all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing,
an almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms -- with
a combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this
way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left…
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932…
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew -- politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now
legally and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly
convert that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides -- those for and those against Hitler -- were very
nearly equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided
among themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one
thing above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable
advantage: in their convictions and in their total faith in a leader.
Their highly organized and well-disciplined party had contented with
the worst kind of obstacles, and had overcome them…
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production…
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; …
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable…
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy -- He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career…
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government…
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."…
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"…
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone…
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class…
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose…
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts -- and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday…
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio…
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds
-- a million -- of those attending were workers. "This May First was
victory day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard -- or their guns. Restoring the nation would
take more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements.
Only then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May
First mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved -- materially, morally, and, one
might even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new
society fit for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and
prejudices of the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands -- an authoritarian
state, its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole -- Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of
the last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation -- The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?…
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products…
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler -- like nearly all
of his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent -- were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable…
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall -- this company would eventually
promote many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent -- a quite acceptable figure in those days -- whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century…
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together…
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn…
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting -- in accordance with "sound" financial principles
-- for the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around…
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses…
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms -- like Krupp,
IG Farben and the large automobile manufacturers -- taking on new
workers on a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous,
car sales increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone.
Employment in the auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for
full production, with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone -- powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike -- his own concept of the organic social community. Only the
loyal collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all
classes and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations -- and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other -- neither the worker
by arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the
blackmail of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community -- no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional,
arbitrary power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it…
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution…
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant…
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories -- something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past -- and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era -- five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1. The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it
approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may
also apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as
established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will
apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be
applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the
Distress of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick…
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?…
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality -- These measures did indeed break
through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved
the material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.
JT
And mindless repetition cannot create truth from falsehood.
"Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1o82l2lqk79621b97...@4ax.com...
Michael Price
Nothing that actually answered my point and this bullshit:
> Leon Degrelle
> "We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
> Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
> cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
> windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
> His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
> is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers.
At 43?
> Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
> at that time.
Bullshit, most people understand that the economic situation was bad.
In fact it's one of the prime arguments of those advocating welfare
policies
that they will avoid the economic situation that allowed Hitler's rise.
> Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
> well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
> skeletons.
No it wasn't that bad at least not until he put people into camps.
> During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
> come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
> people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
> it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
> year or two.
The plans that they pursued were all the same, steal and redistribute
to blame the plight of the Germans pre-Nazi on insufficent planning is
laughable.
> Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
> there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
> state of misery even more horrifying.
Well actually suicides are more common when people are wealthy.
Of course you don't give a source for this figure or a number of years,
(it would be about 6 years of America's average rate).
> By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
> virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
> workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
> unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
> out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
> Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
> to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
> Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
> months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
> the welfare offices.
> Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
> save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
> six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
> saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
> up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
> federal government and the regional states. A good many German
> municipalities were bankrupt.
> Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
> off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
> wages and salaries.
And prices had gone done how much in that interval?
> Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
> 100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
> were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
> 100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
> worries.
Note that nowhere here is there a meaningful comparision of
purchasing power.
What "live with financial worries" means is incomprehensible.
> In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
> the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
> that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
> only an instrument.
Capital is not money.
> Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
> man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
> Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
> reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
> as the principal factor in production...
Bullshit. He did nothing to reestablish the priority of the human
being
and everything to reestablish (if it were ever disestablished) the
priority
of the State in everything.
> For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
> feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
> instead of remaining a social inferior.
And when was he ever treated thus by this dictator? When was
he ever treated as an equal by the Gestapo?
> Under the governments of the
> so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
> remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
> hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; ...
> The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
> unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
> "The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
> sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
> capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
> the economy in turn to serve the people."
By the people he meant himself and his cronies, for they were the
the only ones served by his commands.
> It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
> factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
> the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
> faceless and interchangeable...
> Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
> state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
> consent.
Yeah right, 44% vote is overwhelming?
> For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
> greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
> and energy -- He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
> his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ...
And how did that work out? What greater tragedy could befall it than
his
rule? The Germans, who he claimed to love suffered war defeat and
occupation,
half of them by the second most brutal force in recent history, the
soviets.
Europe was crippled for decades.
> After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
> that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
> historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
> resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
> days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
> majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
> with the state."...
And what sort of State did they identify with? A lying, cheating,
blackmailing murdering one.
> "You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
> an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
> only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
> persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
> forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
> you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
> "In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
> and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
> forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
> you say that criticism is salutary!"...
So someone did it to you, does that justify you doing it to everyone?
> Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
> rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone...
Oh, please, anyone with backbone under Hitler ended up in the camps.
> With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
> thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
> social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
> nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
> Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
> Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
> complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
> including all its buildings, enterprises and banks.
Oh right, it was "peaceful" in that the cops didn't actually kill
anyone
they just pointed out that they could.
> Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
> be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
> obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
> not dropped their guard -- or their guns. Restoring the nation would
> take more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements.
And a lot of trechery.
> Only then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May
> First mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
> How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
> everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
> unemployed back to work?
> What would Hitler do about wages?
He'd steal them by making "donations" compulsory.
> Working hours? Leisure time?
> Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
> the rights and dignity of the worker?
Again, when did Hitler show any worker respect once he was in power.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> Nothing that actually answered my point and this bullshit:
>
> At 43?
>
> Bullshit, most people understand that the economic situation was bad.
>In fact it's one of the prime arguments of those advocating welfare
>policies
>that they will avoid the economic situation that allowed Hitler's rise.
>
> No it wasn't that bad at least not until he put people into camps.
The Jews control your media.
"I know you expect no deep expression of feelings, for feelings cannot
be clothed in words. But please imagine this: jobless, without any
money. For two years! For four years! For six years! A desperate
woman, broken in body and soul, with three young children.
How often did I see their hungry eyes looking toward me with vain
expectation. Nothing is more tortuous than such looks from children.
My faith in him, the fanatical fighter, was what kept me and mine from
what lured us - and anyone else in our situation - Suicide!
And today?
A happy mother who is always singing with her children. No one can see
in her the miserable, desperate woman she once was. Instead of three
unhappy hollow-cheeked children, four little devils making noise far
and wide.
Look at them! There may be families with better behaved children, but
none with children as cheerful and happy! That is what the Führer
means to me and mine.
I turned my back very early to a foreign worldview because it left my
whole life meaningless. The Führer gave me his worldview a firm place
to stand, for it is nothing but a knowledge of the eternal laws that
are behind the universe.
His deeds are a joyful fulfillment of these laws. His successes do not
seem to me, as one hears all too often, the result of good luck,
rather as the natural consequences of his nature. This faith, no, this
certainty, enables me to understand the Führer when his actions would
otherwise require blind confidence.
Such obvious confidence is the most wonderful feeling that I can
imagine. Admiration? Recognition? Thanks? They are nothing when
compared to the full understanding of a people of 80 million for the
mission of its Führer. That alone would be crowning of his sacrificial
struggle.
This fulfillment of this wish is my prayer for the Führer."
Fred. Ch., Poppelau
"The Führer is everything to us, he is our faith, security and hope.
As a bearer of the blood medal, I have always believed in this man,
who guided and inspired us, who led us in the fight for Germany's
greatness. We, me, my wife and our seven children, believe only in
him, Adolf Hitler. Is there a belief more understandable, more real,
more natural than this?
Has the Führer not done everything for us that one could do for the
good of a family? Did he not give me a job and the ability to decently
feed and clothe my family? Has he not given my children a future that
no other country could so easily give?
The Führer is with us in every situation! Look, sometimes the world is
hard on a family. There are difficult situations that cannot be
overcome. In just such hours I go to my living room, and there is a
picture of my Führer.
I look Adolf Hitler in the face and remember his great struggle, his
great will and accomplishments, and my miserable mood is gone and
thinking of the Führer gives me new strength.
How can I fail when I see the greatness in and around Adolf Hitler?
My children know the Führer as the man who rules all, arranges all,
who built their world. The Führer is the embodiment of what people had
such difficulty describing to us children before. But this is the
enormous difference: The Führer moves among the people so that one can
celebrate him, so that our love for him is rewarded through his ever
new deeds.
The Führer is hope for us in every situation. Look, my dear comrade,
according to the Führer's own words, raising seven children is a great
responsibility to the state and a holy duty.
To form these young souls, to raise them to be decent adults, is such
a wonderful task only because the Führer has given us the sure
foundations that are necessary. He is our hope, for only through his
generous measures are we with many children also able to "lead an
decent life," as anyone should be able to do. He protects our strength
through the NSV, through subventions for children, through the support
the state gives women and children, through the high status he gave
children.
Once people mocked those with many children. Today people honor them.
Now my wife and I have become respected members of the state. That is
why we have such hope for the future of our children, for the Führer
has provided all that is necessary for them so that they too will be
able to establish families and contribute to the security and
protection of the great Fatherland.
Is it not wonderful to know what a wonderful future awaits our
children. One cannot but remember our own youth during the postwar
period, during the inflation, the days of hunger and so much that had
terrible effects on our youth and development.
Our children have no fears of such things, for they know that our
Führer plans everything, foresees everything, and prepares the best
for us.
Is it not obvious why the Führer means everything to us?"
Toni Dominik Sch., Unterammergau
"I can still remember the first time I saw and heard the Führer in
1920 in the Zirkus Krone in Munich. This was the introduction: "Adolf
Hitler will speak!" A somewhat slight young man stood before me, with
a short coat, soft collar and crumpled tie, poorly clothed. I was
curious to hear what this man had to say to me.
As I heard his voice, the passion of his words (something unheard of
at the time), the growing tension of his words, it became clear to me:
This man or no one! To this day, this inner feeling has not left me.
The greatness of this man, his deeds, his historic successes seem
enormous to me. But yet I always see him as a man of the people, one
of us in my mind's eye. It fills me with pride that Providence choice
one of our brothers to fulfill German history.
I honor the great figures of German history, but my feelings for the
Führer are different. I believe that love is the best word to describe
them.
One of us, who came from the people, has done amazing deeds, yet
remained the same from the first day I saw him until today.
I admire this man so much that I would defend him even if he were in
the wrong, but he cannot be wrong since he is truth and justice
themselves."
Gr. F., Munich
>
> The plans that they pursued were all the same, steal and redistribute
>to blame the plight of the Germans pre-Nazi on insufficent planning is
>laughable.
The Jews control your media.
By Walter Ruthard
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens…
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children…
Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them…
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe… The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash…
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village…
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down…
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35…
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers…In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
>
> Well actually suicides are more common when people are wealthy.
>Of course you don't give a source for this figure or a number of years,
>(it would be about 6 years of America's average rate).
>
> And prices had gone done how much in that interval?
>
> Note that nowhere here is there a meaningful comparision of
>purchasing power.
>What "live with financial worries" means is incomprehensible.
> Capital is not money.
>
>
> Bullshit. He did nothing to reestablish the priority of the human
>being
>and everything to reestablish (if it were ever disestablished) the
>priority
>of the State in everything.
The Jews control your media.
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
>
> And when was he ever treated thus by this dictator? When was
>he ever treated as an equal by the Gestapo?
Here are some quotes from the book "SS Defender against Bolshevism" by
Reichsfuehrer SS (and head of the Gestapo) Heinrich Himmler:
Most people think Bolshevism is phenomenon that emerged during the
present time. Many even believe that Bolshevism - this Jewish
organized and led struggle of sub-humanity - is totally new in world
history.
It is hence necessary to study a few clear examples of the methods of
their struggle from the past to the present time in order to recognize
the tactics of the Jewish-Bolshevik enemy.
The Bible gives us one of the historical examples of the radical
annihilation of an Aryan folk by Bolshevik-Jewish methods.
The king, who the Bible calls Ahasveros but who was really Xeres, was
separated from his Persian wife Basthi by the extremely clever
intrigue of the court Jews. The king was influenced by Jewish girls,
especially by the Jewish harlot Esther.
We read how, against the will of the folk-oriented and
racially-conscious Minister Haman the elaborate Jewish intrigue ended
with the unscrupulous and blinded king delivering the loyal Minister
Haman to the Jew Mardochei to be hanged. This detestable practice is
also seen later throughout history. Mardochei was made Vice-King. He
issued orders with that cold-blooded, sober and pitiless calculation
typical of Bolshevism. He had the most Persians and all enemies of the
Jews in the towns and cities murdered by Jews protected by the king's
edict on a specific day.
It is obvious that the ancient Persian folk never recovered from this
blow. One can see the entire tragedy in that this folk, struck and
destroyed by Jewish Bolshevism, did not only lose it's high, pure
religion of Zoroastrianism, but also it's native language. Only after
two thousand years were German scholars able to translate the ancient
Persian language into German after painstaking, scientific labor.
This is always the path of Bolshevism: A folk's leadership is cut
down. It falls into slavery; economic, cultural, spiritual,
psychological and physical slavery. The remnants of the folk, robbed
of it's own value and degenerated by endless race-mixing, disappears
within the historically short span of a few centuries. Later one only
knows that such a folk once existed.
How many other tragedies - completed or not - have occurred on this
earth, we do not know.
First the discontent of Russia's socially suffering folk is
systematically exploited and used for revolutionary propaganda. A
number of Russian leaders who wished to abolish serfdom, especially
Minister Stolypin, are eliminated before they can carry out their
reforms for Russia's benefit by Jewish anarchists.
Rule passes from the moderate socialist party into the hands of the
radical socialist party, the Bolsheviks. Nothing more stands in the
way. With the full power of the state the Jews complete the radical
slaughter of the good blood that resists them. One could quote from
the book of Esther where it says: many Persians become Jews out of
fear of the Jews! In the system of the black flag all of the non-Jews
of weak character defect to the Jews. They become the executioners
helpers and helpful spirits, informers and spies against their own
people.
The perfection of these methods of extermination can be seen in the
tactics of the Russian
Secret Police. Again and again, they themselves systematically
organize rebellions with key agents against their own regime in order
to again and again find the leaders who would participate in such and
uprising and neutralize them. Every resistance leader - every one in
this tortured Aryan folk still able to think or even become a leader
against the Bolsheviks and the Jews - falls.
You will see that - in Jews, sub-humans and their auxiliary
organizations - we are confronted by skillful opponents.
Many things, we teach the SS-man, can be forgiven on this earth, but
one thing never, namely disloyalty. Whoever breaks loyalty separates
himself from our community. For loyalty is a matter of the heart,
never of the mind. The mind might resist. That is often harmful, but
never incorrigible. But the heart must always beat the same. It is
stops, the man dies - just like a folk dies it is breaks loyalty. Here
we mean loyalty of every kind:
Loyalty to the Fuehrer and hence to the German/Germanic folk, its will
and kind; loyalty to the blood, to our ancestors and our
grandchildren; loyalty to our clan; loyalty to the comrade; and
loyalty to the irrefutable laws of decency, cleanliness, and
chivalry.. One does not only sin against loyalty and honor if one
passively allows his or the Schutzstaffel's honor to be tarnished. He
sins against it above all if he does not respect the honor of others,
if he mocks things that are sacred to others or if he does not stand
up, manly and decently, for the absent, the weak and the defenseless.
We have learned that only the man with this conviction learns modesty
even in times of success and avoids the mistakes of over-confidence
and arrogance. Likewise only such men can bear times of greatest
distress with the same iron calm they showed in times of good fortune,
living in Spartan simplicity. We teach our SS-men - beyond the
marriage law and the proper mate selection - that our whole struggle,
the political struggle of the past fifteen years and the expansion of
our Wehrmacht to protect our borders, would all be useless and in
vain, if the victory of German spirit is not followed by the victory
of the German child.
We have made it one of our tasks to do more than talk, rather to
proceed through deed and example in our own ranks. We will today and
in the future impress on our men that the most holy and valuable
person of our folk is the mother who is conscious of her sacred duty,
and the German child is the most precious thing.
What do you think of a person who does not believe in God? The answer
is: "I consider him arrogant, megalomaniac and dumb. He is not suited
for us."
To clearly present our stand on religion. Be assured that we would not
be able to form such and an ironclad corps, if we did not have
conviction and faith in a God who stands over us, who created us, our
fatherland, our folk and the earth, and who has sent us our Fuehrer.
We are piously convinced that in accordance with the eternal laws of
this earth we must stand by every deed, every word and every thought.
Everything that our mind thinks up, our tongue speaks, and our hand
carries out does not stop with its execution, rather it is a cause
that will have an effect, in inescapable course that will return to us
and our folk as a blessing or as a curse. Believe me, people with this
stance are anything but atheists. We refuse to allow ourselves to be
slandered as atheists - through misuse of the term pagan - simply
because we as a community do not embrace a particular denomination or
dogma or demand this from any of our men. We allow ourselves the right
and freedom to draw a sharp and distinct line between
religious/church/denominational activity and political/world-view
soldiery, and we will fiercely combat any violation. Likewise we teach
our men - despite much justified outrage and many bad experiences that
our folk has had in this area in the past - to respect everything that
is holy to any folk comrade - due to his education and conviction -
without any insult in word or deed.
I know there are many people in Germany who feel ill when they see
this Black uniform. We understand this and we do not expect that we
will be loved by all too many. We should and we will respect all who
hold Germany dear. Those who have a bad conscience toward the Fuehrer
and the nation should fear us. For these people we have built an
organization called Security Service. As the SS we also provide the
men for service in the
Secret State Police. We will constantly fulfill our task of being the
guarantor of Germany's security internally just like the German
Wehrmacht guarantees the protection of the honor, greatness and peace
of the Reich externally. We will make sure that never again in
Germany, Europe's heart, the Jewish-Bolshevik revolution of
sub-humanity is ignited from within or by emissaries from outside. We
will become a pitiless executioner's sword for all of these forces -
whose existence and activity are known to us - on the day of even the
slightest attempt, be it today or in decades or in centuries.
I return to the beginning and wish to again stress that Bolshevism is
not a contemporary phenomenon that can be debated out of existence or
thought away because we wish that. We know him, the Jew, the people
comprised of the refuse of all the peoples and nations of this planet,
upon who it has stamped its Jewish blood kind. Its wish is world
domination, its desire is destruction, its will is extermination, its
religion is godlessness and its idea is Bolshevism. We do not
underestimate him, because we believe in the divine mission of our
folk and we believe in our again resurrected strength through Adolf
Hitler's leadership and work.
> By the people he meant himself and his cronies, for they were the
>the only ones served by his commands.
The Jews control your media.
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."
> Yeah right, 44% vote is overwhelming?
>
Low votes were at the very beggining before Hitler had a chance to
show what was going to happen.
George Bernard Shaw:
When I said the Herr Hitler's action was right and inevitable, the
storm of abuse that was about to bust on me was suddenly checked by
Mr. Lloyd George saying exactly the same thing. It is inconceivable
that a single vote should be cast against him."
David Lloyd George, Daily Express 17.9.1936:
I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one
of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is
the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.
Hans Grimm:
I witness with awe and admiration, that he, as nearly the first in
the world, caused multitudes without force or any personal benefits to
follow him of their own free will and volition.
The Observer, John L. Garvin:
I have talked to the humblest type of laborers, with merchants,
professional men. I have yet to discover a single dissenting voice to
the question of loyalty to the Fuehrer.
John F Kennedy, U.S President, Prelude to Leadership, The European
Diary of JF Kennedy, Summer, 1945:
After visiting these two places (the town of Berchtesgaden and
Odersalzberg) you can easily understand how that within a few years
Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of
the most significant figures who ever lived. He had in him the stuff
of which legends are made.
>
> And how did that work out? What greater tragedy could befall it than
>his
>rule?
The Jews control your media.
> The Germans, who he claimed to love suffered war defeat and
>occupation,
>half of them by the second most brutal force in recent history, the
>soviets.
>Europe was crippled for decades.
Hitler was fighting against Communism.
>
> And what sort of State did they identify with? A lying, cheating,
>blackmailing murdering one.
The Jews control your media.
The booklet "Everybody's Hitler" is mostly pictures, but here is some
of the text:
Everybody's Hitler:
How They Presented the Führer to You, and How He Really Is
ADOLF HITLER! This name has been at the center of world events for
many years. The unknown corporal of the World War became the leader of
the German Reich. In a few years he led it from one success to
another, raising it to a world power. The newspapers of the entire
world first mocked him, then found ever new ways to libel him.
According to his enemies, Adolf Hitler must be a true devil, the
embodiment of all evil.
Those who lived outside the borders of the Reich could learn the truth
only with difficulty. Very few had the opportunity to meet the Führer
personally...
This is how they presented Hitler's relation to faith and religion.
(A sick cartoon)
And the Truth
Hitler listening to the words of the hymn "Now Thank We All our God"
at the celeration in Vienna following the incorporation of his
Austrian homeland into the Reich: "We pray to the just God."
(A real picture of Hitler)
Hitler himself said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage
war, but to build a new social state with the highest level of
culture. Each year of war keeps me from this work."
The smallest children open their hearts to him. - The growing children
listen to him. - The entire German youth is a Hitler Youth. - The
future belongs to him whom the youth listens to!
Adolf Hitler honors and promotes artists and scientists as no other
statesman in the world. This picture shows him at a cultural
conference with the architect Dr. Troost and his wife, along with the
world-famous doctors and researchers Professor Dr. Bier and Professor
Dr. Sauerbruch.
The Führer and Reich Marshall Göring visit an exhibition of the work
of Prof. Peiner and Bereskine at the Academy of Art in Berlin.
Hitler celebrates Christmas with his soldiers, next to a decorated
Christmas tree.
Because Hitler loves his people, he had to free it from the shackles
of Versailles to guarantee it work and prosperity.
He wanted to accomplish this through peaceful agreement with England
and France. These pictures show the Führer in conversation with
Chamberlain, attempting to preserve peace. But England and France
wanted war.
The Führer therefore had to set aside all the things that were dearest
to him: the peaceful building of his social state and the wonderful
and grand buildings he had begun. He had to take on the war others
forced on him to guarantee his nation of 80,000,000 freedom and peace.
Hitler wanted to free his nation from Versailles through peaceful
means, by negotiating and agreeing with Allied statesmen. He succeeded
in freeing the Sudetan Germans from Czech slavery. The war began over
the ancient German Hanseatic city of Danzig. Poland wanted to remove
the Germanic element from this German cultural landmark and win it for
itself...
In the midst of his gigantic struggle with the enemy world, the Führer
never forgets his larger goal: the building of a better world order.
He has done it first in his own country, building an advanced level of
social services and raising the level of all of German life. He makes
no empty promises to workers, but has established the foundation for
comprehensive old age care, for new housing developments, and social
laws benefiting all those who work. These are all measures serving his
goal of building a strong German people's community for the future.
Breaking the chains of Versailles had more than only domestic
consequences. The terrible burden of tribute was removed from the
German people. Far more important, however, was that Germans removed
from the Reich by the treaty were able to return to the German
homeland.
>
> So someone did it to you, does that justify you doing it to everyone?
>
> Oh, please, anyone with backbone under Hitler ended up in the camps.
"We National Socialists have grown accustomed since our takeover in
1933 to the particular attention of the leading politicians of the
U.S.A. and of the international Jews who stand behind them. Our
defensive measures against international Jewry have aroused increasing
tirades against Germany in America. Sometimes it seemed as if it would
be impossible to increase the flood of hatred and lies...
After leading politicians such as the American Secretary of the
Interior Harold Ickes and Senator Pittman attacked the German
government in the foulest manner, President Roosevelt did even more in
his New Year address. He tried to persuade the American people that
world peace was not assured, and that it was the duty of the American
people to defend three vital principles: those of religion, democracy
and international good will. Roosevelt did not believe these
principles were threatened by Soviet Russia or Soviet Spain, rather by
authoritarian Germany and Italy.
Millions are dead in Soviet Russia and Spanish priests estimate that a
half million people have been murdered there only because of their
faith, but that is not important and proves nothing. The dead do not
trouble the American President's conscience, indeed they did not stop
him from being the single world statesman to congratulate the Soviet
Russian government on the anniversary of the Bolshevist Revolution. No
other statesman did this, which explains why no other statesman
received such praise from the Soviet press. The Soviet press praised
the "noble efforts of the great American statesman."
Roosevelt also ignored the murder of millions of people when it was
called to his attention by a letter from the former Spanish ambassador
in Great Britain, the Marquis de Merry del Wal. The ambassador told
Mr. Roosevelt the following:
Your country's press tells the world of Your Excellency's protests
against the "persecution of the Jews" in Germany. According to the
press, you are deeply distressed by these events. How is it then that
the murder and massacre of 400,000 defenseless men, women and children
in Spain has not resulted in the slightest distress on your part?
These unfortunate people did not die on the battlefields of a civil
war. They were torn from their homes and murdered in public not only
because of their political, but also their religious, beliefs. Their
murderers openly declared their goal of destroying the very
civilization that Your Excellency defends. They have intentionally
destroyed thousands of churches and monuments along with uncounted
works of art and private homes. They have torn the clothes from nuns
and revealed them to everyone's eyes. They raped women and looted to a
degree unknown in the annals of the Christian era.
Your own ambassador, Your Excellency, against all the laws, norms and
customs of international law, has been forced to live away from the
government to which he is accredited, since as he said his personal
security would otherwise be in danger. I further know, Your
Excellency, that you have received certain proof of my assertions, for
I have made efforts to ensure that you have received reports that
support what I have said. Despite that, Your Excellency, you complain
about events in Germany, events that cannot be compared with what is
happening in Spain-and you have not given even the slightest sign of
disapproval at the death of hundreds of thousands of people who have
18 million fellow believers who are among the best citizens of your
country, far more than the two million Jews.
These people have been murdered solely because of their beliefs. Mr.
Roosevelt however has never spoken of a threat to faith or religion.
But they were only believers in a Christian church, after all. Mr.
Roosevelt is conducting a crusade against the authoritarian states
under the banner of religion only because the religious compatriots of
his closest friends have been put in their place in the authoritarian
states.
If President Roosevelt believes that he has to take the field to
defend democracy, we may ask where and when we have ever threatened or
attacked democracy. In the past years Germany has done nothing more
than to partially undo the injustices inflicted on it by the
predecessor of the current president of the U.S.A. Germany has not
arbitrarily altered the map of Europe as he did, creating states
against the will of their peoples only for purposes of power politics.
It has only reclaimed its citizens who suffered a decade long under
governments foreign or hostile to Germany...
In a closed session, he told the Defense Committee of the Senate that
the United States must be ready to support England and France in the
event of a European war. The President reportedly even suggested that
definite agreements already existed to this effect. He further
proposed the unrestricted sale of war materials to Western Europe. The
only restriction was that they had to be able to pay for it. When a
member of the American Senate asked how this policy could be squared
with the law demanding strict neutrality over against Europe,
Roosevelt replied: "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
These revelations naturally were a sensation throughout the world. The
impact was greater than the master of the White House in Washington
wanted. He therefore denied the reports. The force of his denial was
somewhat weakened by excited reports in the American press in which
various members of Congress refused to be called liars, and
furthermore suggested that Roosevelt had said even more during the
session than has been reported. The force of the denial was also
weakened by a cynical article in a French newspaper that noted that
"the strength of the claim has not been weakened, for it is not a
matter of the letter of the law, but of the spirit."...
Roosevelt is acting as the mouthpiece and puppet of international
Jewry when he attacks the authoritarian states. They want to use every
means to destroy the newly awakened nations...
The leaders of the Soviet Union tried to persuade their people that
true communism could only develop after all the other states of the
world were allies of the powers in Moscow, and the Red rulers in
Soviet Spain tried and tried to conceal their governmental
incompetence by unleashing a world conflict. We are not surprised to
see the American President in such company. The real rulers of the
Soviet Union are the same as in the United States: international
Jewry.
The truth of this claim is confirmed by the behavior of the wife of
the American President. Mrs. Roosevelt, as a sign of her support for
the Spanish Bolshevist rulers, accepted a gift of stolen etchings by
Spanish masters. Mrs. Roosevelt chaired an exhibition of busts of
Spanish Communist leaders, made by the Jew Josef Davidson. She also
invited the well-known top Bolshevist Toller to lunch. She surrounds
herself with wounded bigwigs of Soviet Spain under whose orders
500,000 Spaniards were killed only because they were faithful to their
beliefs and their religion...
America today is not governed by men like Roosevelt, Ickes, etc.,
rather its fate is determined by the Jews who stand behind them, Jews
like Baruch, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, etc. They are the real rulers of
America, and Roosevelt, Ickes, etc., are only their tools. The fact
that this is known in America is evident from a variety of newspaper
articles. The "New York Daily News," for example, wrote that "the wave
of anti-Semitism in America has increased significantly in recent
weeks and months." The fact that the Jew Bernard Baruch, the
President's closest adviser, is called the unofficial president of the
United States is proof of this fact.
But enough of that. We refuse to interfere in the affairs of other
nations. We think that every country gets the Jews that it deserves.
But we demand the same principle be extended to us. Let Mr. Roosevelt
carry out his reforms and crusades in his own country. He will not
live long enough to do it all. We do not think we have yet seen
anything on the other side of the ocean that is worth imitating. We
think it not a sign of ability, rather of incompetence, that a nation
with such enormous resources and space, with all modern methods, finds
itself in such mass misery and is unable to do anything to alleviate
that misery.
Where would Roosevelt be if he had had to deal with the situation the
Führer faced when he took power in Germany? Mr. Roosevelt has
agricultural resources more than sufficient to feed the country, yet
his people are starving. His country has enormous resources, yet
millions are unemployed. There is only one conclusion to be drawn."
>
> Oh right, it was "peaceful" in that the cops didn't actually kill
>anyone
>they just pointed out that they could.
>
>
> And a lot of trechery.
>
> He'd steal them by making "donations" compulsory.
>
> Again, when did Hitler show any worker respect once he was in power.
The Jews control your media.
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
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 the
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."
Michael Price
> On 11 Nov 2006 18:32:44 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Nothing that actually answered my point and this bullshit:
> >
> > At 43?
> >
> > Bullshit, most people understand that the economic situation was bad.
> >In fact it's one of the prime arguments of those advocating welfare
> >policies
> >that they will avoid the economic situation that allowed Hitler's rise.
> >
> > No it wasn't that bad at least not until he put people into camps.
>
> The Jews control your media.
>
> >
> > The plans that they pursued were all the same, steal and redistribute
> >to blame the plight of the Germans pre-Nazi on insufficent planning is
> >laughable.
>
> The Jews control your media.
>
> By Walter Ruthard
>
> I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
> Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
> Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
> passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
> region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
> The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
> took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
> family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
> housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
> percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
> My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
> free newly built house from the government.
>
> This was but one of the many programs the government established in
> order to improve the quality of life for its citizens...
>
> Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
> before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
> time in rural settings together with their children...
So in other words they did steal and redistribute. You must be one
of those Jews who control the media to make me think the Nazis were
bad.
>
> Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
> durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
> take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
> for this purpose.
And who decided they were "deserving"? Why the Nazi party of course.
And who paid for the trips? The "undeserving" i.e. the Jews and all
those
who didn't suck up enough to your putrid party.
> On these ships there was only one class and
> everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
> Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
> in and English port however. The reason was that the British
> government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
> done for them...
>
> The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
> "Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
> believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe... The
> Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
> where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
> pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
> other interpretation is plain hogwash...
>
Including interpretations based on documentation?
> My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
> together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
> was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record.
And not Jewish of course.
> Then in 1945,
> when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
> not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
> arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
> village...
>
> Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
> democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
> one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
> wasn't nailed down...
And Hitler didn't?
>
> It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
> least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule.
Gee they must have been real significant if you didn't notice them.
Why would someone who destroyed the power of parliment bother with
a plebescite that wasn't rigged?
> In democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
> plebiscite.
>
> There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
> one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
> who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
> daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
> never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
> treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
> took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
> including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
> wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
> slave laborer.
Oh come on. You really explect me to believe that Hitler did this?
It's a
direct contradiction of everything he said he believed in.
>
> Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
> and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
> performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
> more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
> the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
> they are 35...
>
> Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
> comprehensive animal protection law.
But I thought Jews were animals?
> Farm animals had to be kept in
> strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
> course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
> slaughter.
>
> If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
> highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
> where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
Regardless of whether that made any sense at all. Of course a little
bribe took care of these mindless regulations.
> and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers...
When the fuck did you know a worker who cared what the lawn was
like outside his factory?
> In national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
> in other European countries.
>
So?
>
> And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
> mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
> forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
> opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
> punished by such degrading means.
BWWWAHHHHH!
>
> That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
>
> >
> > Well actually suicides are more common when people are wealthy.
> >Of course you don't give a source for this figure or a number of years,
> >(it would be about 6 years of America's average rate).
> >
> > And prices had gone done how much in that interval?
> >
> > Note that nowhere here is there a meaningful comparision of
> >purchasing power.
> >What "live with financial worries" means is incomprehensible.
>
> > Capital is not money.
> >
> >
> > Bullshit. He did nothing to reestablish the priority of the human
> >being and everything to reestablish (if it were ever disestablished) the
> >priority of the State in everything.
>
> The Jews control your media.
>
But they don't control his words and he held the State to be
everything
and the individual nothing.
> Douglas Reed wrote:
<snip more nazis with no evidence>
> >
> > And when was he ever treated thus by this dictator? When was
> >he ever treated as an equal by the Gestapo?
>
>
> Here are some quotes from the book "SS Defender against Bolshevism" by
> Reichsfuehrer SS (and head of the Gestapo) Heinrich Himmler:
> <Snip more irrevelencies>
> > By the people he meant himself and his cronies, for they were the
> >the only ones served by his commands.
>
> The Jews control your media.
>
Why don't you actually produce evidence moron?
> > Yeah right, 44% vote is overwhelming?
> >
> Low votes were at the very beggining before Hitler had a chance to
> show what was going to happen.
>
That was the highest he ever got moron.
> George Bernard Shaw:
>
> When I said the Herr Hitler's action was right and inevitable, the
> storm of abuse that was about to bust on me was suddenly checked by
> Mr. Lloyd George saying exactly the same thing. It is inconceivable
> that a single vote should be cast against him."
>
> David Lloyd George, Daily Express 17.9.1936:
>
This is the same Shaw that said that the peasants were feasting in
the USSR.
> I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one
> of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is
> the worship of a national hero who has saved his country.
How saved was it at the end of his life?
>
> Hans Grimm:
>
> I witness with awe and admiration, that he, as nearly the first in
> the world, caused multitudes without force or any personal benefits to
> follow him of their own free will and volition.
>
> The Observer, John L. Garvin:
>
> I have talked to the humblest type of laborers, with merchants,
> professional men. I have yet to discover a single dissenting voice to
> the question of loyalty to the Fuehrer.
>
And that didn't tip him off that the praise was bullshit? Really
leaders
are criticised.
> John F Kennedy, U.S President, Prelude to Leadership, The European
> Diary of JF Kennedy, Summer, 1945:
>
> After visiting these two places (the town of Berchtesgaden and
> Odersalzberg) you can easily understand how that within a few years
> Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of
> the most significant figures who ever lived. He had in him the stuff
> of which legends are made.
>
But he didn't so emerge did he? He destroyed the country.
> >
> > And how did that work out? What greater tragedy could befall it than
> >his rule?
>
> The Jews control your media.
>
Answer the fucking question.
Topaz
wrote:
>> Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
>> before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
>> time in rural settings together with their children...
>
> So in other words they did steal and redistribute. You must be one
>of those Jews who control the media to make me think the Nazis were
>bad.
Do you know anyone who benefited from a public education? The fact
that the schools are filled with evil propaganda today is not my point
here. Schools should teach reading and writing and so on. And if this
is free it is "stealing and redistributing" according to you. But in
reality it is what makes a nation good. We should have taxes to bring
such goodness but the tax should only be ten percent of income.
You gripe about taxes but not about how you are ripped off by the
parasites. Hitler nationalized the banks and put an end to the
parasites. All Germans had to do some usefull work and not profit like
bankers do without any doing actual work.
"Internationalization today means only Judaisation. We in Germany have
come to this: that a sixty million people sees its destiny at the will
of a few dozen Jewish bankers."
Adolf Hitler, 28th July 1922
"I realized that the fight was not against enemy nations, but against
international capital."
"The fight against international finance and loan capital became the
most important point
in the program of the German nation's struggle for its economic
independence and freedom."
Adolf Hitler
Here is a quote from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes
into existence 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. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. 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 existence, 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 for World 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 Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
Michael Price
> On 12 Nov 2006 19:16:00 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
> >> before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
> >> time in rural settings together with their children...
> >
> > So in other words they did steal and redistribute. You must be one
> >of those Jews who control the media to make me think the Nazis were
> >bad.
>
> Do you know anyone who benefited from a public education?
Do you? Public education isn't supposed to help it's recipients,
that's
why they don't let parents spend the money on buying the education.
> The fact
> that the schools are filled with evil propaganda today is not my point
> here. Schools should teach reading and writing and so on.
Not proven but we'll let it go.
> And if this
> is free it is "stealing and redistributing" according to you.
Well what else do you call having people tell you that you must pay
or
be attacked by the State and then spending the money on others?
> But in
> reality it is what makes a nation good.
How does making every child a reciever of stolen goods make a nation
good? What is moral about taking what you want by force?
> We should have taxes to bring
> such goodness but the tax should only be ten percent of income.
>
> You gripe about taxes but not about how you are ripped off by the
> parasites.
That is my gripe about taxes.
> Hitler nationalized the banks and put an end to the
> parasites.
No he only made them work for him.
> All Germans had to do some usefull work and not profit like
> bankers do without any doing actual work.
>
Banking is work.
<snip usual bullshit>
Topaz
wrote:
>> Do you know anyone who benefited from a public education?
>
> Do you?
Not really, but it could be good if the right people were running it.
It wouldn't be good to have a lot of illiterate citizens and people
who know nothing of math etc. And regardless how poor the child
citizens are they should be taught that. Certainly this is part of
having a good nation. Capitalism is the opposition to anything a
government might do to make things better for people. Certainly that
is bad.
> Public education isn't supposed to help it's recipients,
>that's
>why they don't let parents spend the money on buying the education.
So only the well off can get a decent education and only the rich
can become doctors? That just isn't right. Libertianism in practice is
so evil I have to call it a gutter philosophy.
>
>> The fact
>> that the schools are filled with evil propaganda today is not my point
>> here. Schools should teach reading and writing and so on.
>
> Not proven but we'll let it go.
>
>> And if this
>> is free it is "stealing and redistributing" according to you.
>
> Well what else do you call having people tell you that you must pay
>or
>be attacked by the State and then spending the money on others?
If you are against education for poor citizens you should be
attacked by the state.
>
>> But in
>> reality it is what makes a nation good.
>
> How does making every child a reciever of stolen goods make a nation
>good? What is moral about taking what you want by force?
Never heard of Robin Hood then.
If you are against taxes, who would pave the roads in your society?
>
>> We should have taxes to bring
>> such goodness but the tax should only be ten percent of income.
>>
>> You gripe about taxes but not about how you are ripped off by the
>> parasites.
>
> That is my gripe about taxes.
>
>> Hitler nationalized the banks and put an end to the
>> parasites.
>
> No he only made them work for him.
You are wrong and the reason you are wrong is that the Jews control
your media. Hitler made things great for the people.
>
>> All Germans had to do some usefull work and not profit like
>> bankers do without any doing actual work.
>>
> Banking is work.
No, banking is not work. Bankers are parasites. A company that makes
cars or builds houses does something productive. The idea of banking
is to let your money work for you instead of you working yourself. The
whole system is corrupt and needs to be replaced.
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more
loans, and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't
make their payment he takes
their entire farm or business.
That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and
make their own money. To make the initial supply of money they would
simply print $100 for each
of them. This money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest.
But there is a money supply
on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more cars and
houses are built, from time to time more money would need to be
created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers can do this on his own. It is decided and
done at a town meeting.
A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting.
The government should create money and not private bankers. The
government should be for
the people.
Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.
Michael Price
> On 2 Jan 2007 19:09:19 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Do you know anyone who benefited from a public education?
> >
> > Do you?
>
> Not really, but it could be good if the right people were running it.
You keep saying that but where's your evidence? Plutonium isn't good
for
you if injected by the right doctor and nor is the State good for you
if
controlled by the right people. You had your perfect leader running
the
State and what happened? Millions of people died because of his stupid
decisions, including decisions you claimed his enemies wanted him to
make!
> It wouldn't be good to have a lot of illiterate citizens and people
> who know nothing of math etc. And regardless how poor the child
> citizens are they should be taught that.
Which is quite easy to do without the use of violent force. In fact
it's done better without it.
> Certainly this is part of
> having a good nation. Capitalism is the opposition to anything a
> government might do to make things better for people.
Such as stealing and giving to people who will support the
government.
> Certainly that
> is bad.
>
> > Public education isn't supposed to help it's recipients,
> > that's why they don't let parents spend the money on buying the education.
>
> So only the well off can get a decent education and only the rich
> can become doctors?
Well no. The poor got a decent education before public education and
it was getting better. As for only the rich becoming doctors, well
it's not
the market that shut down most of the medical schools to deliberately
increase the cost of medical education and therefore medicine.
> That just isn't right. Libertianism in practice is
> so evil I have to call it a gutter philosophy.
>
And yet your philosophy is the one that murders people by the
millions,
even accepting your ludicrous denials of the holocaust.
> >
> >> The fact
> >> that the schools are filled with evil propaganda today is not my point
> >> here. Schools should teach reading and writing and so on.
> >
> > Not proven but we'll let it go.
> >
> >> And if this
> >> is free it is "stealing and redistributing" according to you.
> >
> > Well what else do you call having people tell you that you must pay
> >or be attacked by the State and then spending the money on others?
>
> If you are against education for poor citizens you should be
> attacked by the state.
>
Answer the question dickweed, what is telling people that they will
be
attacked by the State if they don't pay up, if not theft? And who says
I'm against education for poor citizens? I'm very much for it, hence
my
dislike of public schooling.
> >
> >> But in
> >> reality it is what makes a nation good.
> >
> > How does making every child a reciever of stolen goods make a nation
> >good? What is moral about taking what you want by force?
>
> Never heard of Robin Hood then.
>
I have actually and he stole from taxmen because their extortions
were
unfair and unconsititutional.
> If you are against taxes, who would pave the roads in your society?
>
Whoever owns them. We've been over this before.
> >
> >> We should have taxes to bring
> >> such goodness but the tax should only be ten percent of income.
> >>
> >> You gripe about taxes but not about how you are ripped off by the
> >> parasites.
> >
> > That is my gripe about taxes.
> >
> >> Hitler nationalized the banks and put an end to the
> >> parasites.
> >
> > No he only made them work for him.
>
> You are wrong and the reason you are wrong is that the Jews control
> your media.
Then you deny that the nationalised banks used their influence to
help
the Nazi party steal from the productive? If I cite evidence of this
will
you admit that just maybe they were parasitic?
> Hitler made things great for the people.
>
> >
> >> All Germans had to do some usefull work and not profit like
> >> bankers do without any doing actual work.
> >>
> > Banking is work.
>
> No, banking is not work. Bankers are parasites. A company that makes
> cars or builds houses does something productive. The idea of banking
> is to let your money work for you instead of you working yourself. The
> whole system is corrupt and needs to be replaced.
Do you think that banking profits just happen? You have to provide
useful
things (credit) for less than it costs to provide them. Lending money
to
businesses is useful because without it they would not get the
resources
to make useful investments. Your delusion that a goverment official
could handle the job adequately is just that. You couldn't do it
either come
to that.
>
> To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
> on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
> things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
> that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
> banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
> at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
> buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
> the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
> money that exists on the island.
>
Which is why the workers wouldn't borrow the money, after all they
have no use for a fiat currency that is unbacked by anything. This is
why gold works and paper doesn't.
> And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
> of nothing by printing notes on his printing press.
No, the goverment does. Without government help to the bankers
people insist on real money from their bankers and the problem doesn't
occur.
> Every month the
> banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more
> loans, and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't
> make their payment he takes
> their entire farm or business.
>
> That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
> their own printing press and
> make their own money. To make the initial supply of money they would
> simply print $100 for each
> of them. This money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest.
And why would anyone accept it?
You really ought to read a book not written by a Nazi.
Topaz
wrote:
>> >> Do you know anyone who benefited from a public education?
>> >
>> > Do you?
>>
>> Not really, but it could be good if the right people were running it.
>
> You keep saying that but where's your evidence? Plutonium isn't good
>for
>you if injected by the right doctor and nor is the State good for you
>if
>controlled by the right people.
False. You must have some different meaning for the word "good". I
say law and order is good for one thing. We should only have laws if
they are beneficial of course. For example the law on only being
allowed to shoot so many deer. If everyone shot all the deer they
wanted all the time, deer would go exctinct.
> You had your perfect leader running
>the
>State and what happened? Millions of people died because of his stupid
>decisions, including decisions you claimed his enemies wanted him to
>make!
Utterly false. He made Germany great. The Jewish controlled countries
couldn't stand that and made sure there was a war to stop it. The
Jewish controlled countries have the rotten evil governments and they
want the whole world to be like them.
>
>> It wouldn't be good to have a lot of illiterate citizens and people
>> who know nothing of math etc. And regardless how poor the child
>> citizens are they should be taught that.
>
> Which is quite easy to do without the use of violent force. In fact
>it's done better without it.
Maybe we could designate some jungle for libertarians to live in if
they don't like civilization.
Here is part of a speech by Rudolf Hess in East Prussia in July 1934
"Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
the leadership of the state.
The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
towered above the individual fate."
>
>> Certainly this is part of
>> having a good nation. Capitalism is the opposition to anything a
>> government might do to make things better for people.
>
> Such as stealing and giving to people who will support the
>government.
OK, say you live in a house with four other people. There are bills
to pay, and you may want to buy say a pool table. What you should do
is all pay your fair share. Taxes are the same thing.
>
> Well no. The poor got a decent education before public education and
>
>it was getting better.
What could you be talking about. The poor were uneducated before
public education.
> As for only the rich becoming doctors, well
>it's not
>the market that shut down most of the medical schools to deliberately
>increase the cost of medical education and therefore medicine.
"Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available."
NS Germany
> And yet your philosophy is the one that murders people by the
>millions,
>even accepting your ludicrous denials of the holocaust.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie, including the holo. Hitler made Germany the greatest nation that
ever existed. It was only destroyed in war by the Jewish controlled
countries.
>
> Answer the question dickweed, what is telling people that they will
>be
>attacked by the State if they don't pay up, if not theft? And who says
See the house example above. If you don't want to pay your fair share
for the elecricity and other expenses you should be kicked out of the
house.
>
>I'm against education for poor citizens? I'm very much for it, hence
>my
>dislike of public schooling.
Non sequitur
>
> I have actually and he stole from taxmen because their extortions
>were
>unfair and unconsititutional.
But he didn't keep it all. He gave it to the poor, where apparently
these taxes were not going in the first place. He was a hero because
he cared about other people instead of just himself.
>
>> If you are against taxes, who would pave the roads in your society?
>>
> Whoever owns them. We've been over this before.
Of course you don't like being put in checkmate again. So you think
some rich guy should "own" the road and have the right to tell
trespassers to get off the road if he feels like it. This is what you
call "freedom".
>
> Then you deny that the nationalised banks used their influence to
>help
>the Nazi party steal from the productive?
Taxes are like the house example above. And the programs he had were
great, free vacations for workers on ocean liners, etc. This is
putting taxes to great use. The USA gives billions of dollars to the
Jews so they can cause trouble for us and get us involved in wars.
A nationalist government could easily afford the great programs for
people without causing anyone any discomfort. The tax should only be
ten percent of income, with no property tax or sales tax.
> If I cite evidence of this
>will
>you admit that just maybe they were parasitic?
Your media is Jewish and nothing but one big hate campaign against
the best nation that ever existed.
>>
>> No, banking is not work. Bankers are parasites. A company that makes
>> cars or builds houses does something productive. The idea of banking
>> is to let your money work for you instead of you working yourself. The
>> whole system is corrupt and needs to be replaced.
>
> Do you think that banking profits just happen? You have to provide
>useful
>things (credit) for less than it costs to provide them. Lending money
>to
>businesses is useful because without it they would not get the
>resources
>to make useful investments. Your delusion that a goverment official
>could handle the job adequately is just that. You couldn't do it
>either come
>to that.
Business loans should be from the government and at zero interest.
We need to scrap the debt-money system. This site explains it for
those who don't know:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
We need a money supply that is not owed to 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.
>
> Which is why the workers wouldn't borrow the money, after all they
>have no use for a fiat currency that is unbacked by anything. This is
>why gold works and paper doesn't.
Paper money does work. You can go into any store and see that it
works.
Gold may be a good looking metal but it would be bad to use it for
money or to back
money with it. There is no reason to have such an expensive money
supply. Paper money works, you can go into any store and see that. A
nation does not need a mountain of gold
in order to have a good economy.
By the way, America was on the gold standard during the great
depression.
Money should simply be a means of exchanging goods. It doesn't need
any more intrinsic value than a ticket to see a movie. And it is a
complete waste of materials to make money itself expensive.
>
>> And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
>> of nothing by printing notes on his printing press.
>
> No, the goverment does.
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.
> Without government help to the bankers
> people insist on real money from their bankers and the problem doesn't
>occur.
Money only has to represent wealth. We don't need gold money, as
shown above.
>
> And why would anyone accept it?
Paper money works. You can go into any store and see that. The
problem is the debt-money system.
> You really ought to read a book not written by a Nazi.
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."
darkness
oppresive forms such as Nazism and Stalinism.
Frank Clarke
<1167956683.7...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>Socialism is definitely more libertarian. Fascism has had it's
>oppresive forms such as Nazism and Stalinism.
>
>http://www.pushhamburger.com/oppresive.htm
May I suggest you pick up a copy of Friedrich Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom"? He
definitively puts the torch to the notion that Naziism, Fascism, and Communism
are different from Socialism.
darkness
socialist either. I would rather call them "terrorists".
Michael Price
> On 3 Jan 2007 22:09:09 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> Do you know anyone who benefited from a public education?
> >> >
> >> > Do you?
> >>
> >> Not really, but it could be good if the right people were running it.
> >
> > You keep saying that but where's your evidence? Plutonium isn't good
> >for you if injected by the right doctor and nor is the State good for you
> >if controlled by the right people.
>
> False. You must have some different meaning for the word "good".
Yes, and you never explain why your version is actually something
anyone
should want.
> I say law and order is good for one thing.
So do I but your methods don't supply it. Under the State and
particularly
under your version of the State there is no law and what order there is
exist in spite of the State not because of it.
> We should only have laws if
> they are beneficial of course. For example the law on only being
> allowed to shoot so many deer. If everyone shot all the deer they
> wanted all the time, deer would go exctinct.
>
And why would that be worse than me not getting to shoot more deer?
Of course States are woeful at protecting species and if fact have
encourage
the enviroment destruction that is the greatest cause of extinction.
> > You had your perfect leader running
> >the
> >State and what happened? Millions of people died because of his stupid
> >decisions, including decisions you claimed his enemies wanted him to
> >make!
>
> Utterly false. He made Germany great.
Then why was it destroyed under his watch? If what I said was false
then
why do you claim the Germans were baited into world war two, which
clearly
killed millions of people and destroyed the country he supposedly
loved?
> The Jewish controlled countries
> couldn't stand that and made sure there was a war to stop it. The
> Jewish controlled countries have the rotten evil governments and they
> want the whole world to be like them.
>
And yet in those countries you could criticise the government
without
being tortured or indefinitely detained. Not so in Germany. This is
greatness?
> >
> >> It wouldn't be good to have a lot of illiterate citizens and people
> >> who know nothing of math etc. And regardless how poor the child
> >> citizens are they should be taught that.
> >
> > Which is quite easy to do without the use of violent force. In fact
> >it's done better without it.
>
> Maybe we could designate some jungle for libertarians to live in if
> they don't like civilization.
>
Civilisation is not the use of force.
> >
> >> Certainly this is part of
> >> having a good nation. Capitalism is the opposition to anything a
> >> government might do to make things better for people.
> >
> > Such as stealing and giving to people who will support the
> >government.
>
> OK, say you live in a house with four other people. There are bills
> to pay, and you may want to buy say a pool table. What you should do
> is all pay your fair share.
Non sequitur, whose house is it and what was the agreement when
people entered it.
> Taxes are the same thing.
>
No they are not. A "nation" is a fictional entity created by force,
not
a real structure created by effort.
> >
> > Well no. The poor got a decent education before public education and
> >
> >it was getting better.
>
> What could you be talking about. The poor were uneducated before
> public education.
Learn some history, they were getting better and better educated with
literacy being the exception rather than the rule
>
> > As for only the rich becoming doctors, well
> >it's not
> >the market that shut down most of the medical schools to deliberately
> >increase the cost of medical education and therefore medicine.
>
> "Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
> and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
> performers were promoted with all means available."
>
> NS Germany
>
And so because the beneficiaries were smart it's OK to rob people?
>
> > And yet your philosophy is the one that murders people by the
> >millions,
> >even accepting your ludicrous denials of the holocaust.
>
> The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
> lie, including the holo. Hitler made Germany the greatest nation that
> ever existed. It was only destroyed in war by the Jewish controlled
> countries.
Hitler made Germany so bankrupt he had to steal millions from the
Jews and still had to start the war early to avoid going bankrupt
before
it started. The gold reserves tell the story.
> >
> > Answer the question dickweed, what is telling people that they will
> >be attacked by the State if they don't pay up, if not theft? And who says
>
> See the house example above. If you don't want to pay your fair share
> for the elecricity and other expenses you should be kicked out of the
> house.
It's my house and who are you to decide that paying for something I
don't
use is a fair share?
>
> >
> >I'm against education for poor citizens? I'm very much for it, hence
> >my dislike of public schooling.
>
> Non sequitur
>
You yourself said you don't know anyone who benefitted from it.
> >
> > I have actually and he stole from taxmen because their extortions
> >were unfair and unconsititutional.
>
> But he didn't keep it all. He gave it to the poor, where apparently
> these taxes were not going in the first place.
He gave it to the poor because that's who it came from. Do you think
an outlaw paid taxes.
> He was a hero because
> he cared about other people instead of just himself.
>
No he was a hero because he righted a wrong, specifically the one
you champion.
> >
> >> If you are against taxes, who would pave the roads in your society?
> >>
> > Whoever owns them. We've been over this before.
>
> Of course you don't like being put in checkmate again.
What checkmate, I've answered the question.
> So you think
> some rich guy should "own" the road and have the right to tell
> trespassers to get off the road if he feels like it. This is what you
> call "freedom".
Well yes. If he paid for the land and for the road to be built he
decides
what happens to it and who uses it. Mostly people who own roads charge
to use them. Governments collect money by threatening murder, I prefer
a toll.
>
> >
> > Then you deny that the nationalised banks used their influence to
> >help the Nazi party steal from the productive?
>
> Taxes are like the house example above. And the programs he had were
> great, free vacations for workers on ocean liners, etc. This is
> putting taxes to great use. The USA gives billions of dollars to the
> Jews so they can cause trouble for us and get us involved in wars.
> A nationalist government could easily afford the great programs for
> people without causing anyone any discomfort. The tax should only be
> ten percent of income, with no property tax or sales tax.
>
Lack of answer noted?
> > If I cite evidence of this
> >will
> >you admit that just maybe they were parasitic?
>
> Your media is Jewish and nothing but one big hate campaign against
> the best nation that ever existed.
>
Answer the question, if I cite evidence will you admit you're wrong?
> >>
> >> No, banking is not work. Bankers are parasites. A company that makes
> >> cars or builds houses does something productive. The idea of banking
> >> is to let your money work for you instead of you working yourself. The
> >> whole system is corrupt and needs to be replaced.
> >
> > Do you think that banking profits just happen? You have to provide
> >useful
> >things (credit) for less than it costs to provide them. Lending money
> >to
> >businesses is useful because without it they would not get the
> >resources
> >to make useful investments. Your delusion that a goverment official
> >could handle the job adequately is just that. You couldn't do it
> >either come
> >to that.
>
> Business loans should be from the government and at zero interest.
>
Why? It's my money and I'll lend it as I like. Neither you nor the
government
are better at doing that than me.
Michael Price
> I won't call Hitler and Stalin communists. Hitler wasn't a true
> socialist either. I would rather call them "terrorists".
What do you mean he wasn't a true socialist? He redistributed the
wealth by the gun and called himself socialist, good enough for me.
whiterose
most idiotic relativistic statement I've heard in a long time.
Perhaps Mr. Hayek is confusing socialism as it was conceived with the
cruel perversions that a few lunatics inflicted on it?
Calling socialism no different than fascism is like saying that the
teachings of jesus christ are fully realized in the actions of
Appalachian Snake Handlers.
WR
Michael Price
> Well Friedrich Hayek is totally full of shit, then. That is about the
> most idiotic relativistic statement I've heard in a long time.
What's relativistic about it? He was simply pointing out that the
Nazi and Communist systems were basically identical and exactly
what you can expect from socialism.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Hayek is confusing socialism as it was conceived with the
> cruel perversions that a few lunatics inflicted on it?
>
Well how is it concieved if not as someone telling someone what they
have to do and enforcing the decision?
> Calling socialism no different than fascism is like saying that the
> teachings of jesus christ are fully realized in the actions of
> Appalachian Snake Handlers.
>
> WR
But the Snake Handlers clearly violate the ideas set out in the
text, fascism doesn't violate the basic ideas of socialism.
Patriot Games
news:1167956683.7...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Socialism is definitely more libertarian. Fascism has had it's
> oppresive forms such as Nazism and Stalinism.
Socialism IS more libertarian when compared to Fascism but American
democracy is FAR MORE free when compared to Socialism.
Topaz
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew -- as
almost all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing,
an almost desperate responsibility.
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy -- He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career…
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government…
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
class…
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard -- or their guns. Restoring the nation would
take more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements.
First mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories -- something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past -- and hold forth to crowds of
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
I have remained what I was then."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
Topaz
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression
of the supranational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favorable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
Topaz
by Robert Locke
libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole
rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a
clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make
more money, have more sex, or take more drugs...
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple:
freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in
life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is
not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected
to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the
same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian
tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things
imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations
that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen,
entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice.
But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness
for most real people and the principal issues that concern
governments...
Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices
presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national
security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective.
It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts
can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every
pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?
the libertarian principle of "an it harm none, do as thou wilt"...
Consider pornography:
libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn't
like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can't do is choose
not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it...
Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free
society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?...
Libertarianism's abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to
bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow
one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in
history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And
libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with
the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the
abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like
those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the
insane and the senile.
Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs,
would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused
trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or
homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people
were abolished. They claim a "natural order" of reasonable behavior
would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would
happen...
And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative
consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair
to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the
costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these
outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are
taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to
starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in
order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative
would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.
Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which
is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Irony of
ironies, people don't choose absolute freedom. But this refutes
libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good
as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically,
people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will
support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be
achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of
authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians' claim
that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what's
best for other people impose their values on the rest of us.
Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one
true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails
imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and
minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of
except by leaving.
And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of
bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in
favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been
tried, in various epochs, and doesn't lead to any wonderful paradise
of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement
followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks
that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian
schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.
A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naďve view of
economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual
history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to
refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the
second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most
regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially
lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic
paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail
going to the opposite extreme.
Libertarian naďveté extends to politics. They often confuse the
absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such.
But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey
to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a
freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a
chaotic Third-World tyranny.
Libertarians are also naďve about the range and perversity of human
desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more
threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by
some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if
people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially
bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral
of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their
being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population,
preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs,
failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is
dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into
barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically,
this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the
external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom,
not more...
libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of
how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free
choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of
admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives
should know better.
Topaz
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens…
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children…
Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them…
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe… The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash…
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village…
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down…
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35…
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers…In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
Topaz
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."
"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred 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.
Frank Clarke
<1167974800.0...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
>Well Friedrich Hayek is totally full of shit, then. That is about the
>most idiotic relativistic statement I've heard in a long time.
>
>Perhaps Mr. Hayek is confusing socialism as it was conceived with the
>cruel perversions that a few lunatics inflicted on it?
>
>Calling socialism no different than fascism is like saying that the
>teachings of jesus christ are fully realized in the actions of
>Appalachian Snake Handlers.
From a review of TRTS by Thomas Sowell:
'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.'
And I add:
Anyone who rejects Hayek without having read Hayek is merely continuing a long
and honored tradition of 'denigration and demonizing of political opponents'.
Socialism 'as conceived' is merely an unworkable ideal; in practice it quickly
mutates to forms which we find less and less palatable.
Topaz
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
wrote:
> Yes, and you never explain why your version is actually something
>anyone
>should want.
There should be prosperity and everything should look good. Whites
are happier among their own kind. We should have a nation for Whites.
Whites who already live around mostly Whites may not understand or
appreciate what they have. If they lived where it is mostly non-White
for a while they would get the picture.
>
>> I say law and order is good for one thing.
>
> So do I but your methods don't supply it. Under the State and
>particularly
>under your version of the State there is no law and what order there is
>
>exist in spite of the State not because of it.
I am not arguing in favor of the United States but of National
Socialism. And that has law and order.
>
>> We should only have laws if
>> they are beneficial of course. For example the law on only being
>> allowed to shoot so many deer. If everyone shot all the deer they
>> wanted all the time, deer would go exctinct.
>>
> And why would that be worse than me not getting to shoot more deer?
Because I don't want the deer to go extinct.
>Of course States are woeful at protecting species and if fact have
>encourage
>the enviroment destruction that is the greatest cause of extinction.
Libertarianism does that.
>
> Then why was it destroyed under his watch?
Because parasites and others who profit from a corrupt system want
corruption.
> If what I said was false
>then
>why do you claim the Germans were baited into world war two, which
>clearly
>killed millions of people and destroyed the country he supposedly
>loved?
The International Jewish Boycott Conference assembled in Holland to
discuss ways by which Jewish interests in Germany might be protected.
Referring to the Jews as 'the aristocrats of the world' (the master
race!), Samuel Untermeyer, the President of the World Jewish Economic
Federation, said: "Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not
already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is
not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must
refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any
German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping.... we
will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their
senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence
depends." - C.B.S, August,7th, 1933
"Judea declares War on Germany." (Daily Express, March 24, 1934)
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every
Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by
every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption
that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start
a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany.
Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to
recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish
interests call for the complete destruction of Germany..."
(Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)
"Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year
but later..." (The Jewish Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)
> And yet in those countries you could criticise the government
>without
>being tortured or indefinitely detained. Not so in Germany. This is
>greatness?
National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
in regard to free speech 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. Hitler said:
"You talk about persecution!" (to an address by the Social Democratic
speaker) "I think that there are only a few of us [in our party] here
who did not have to suffer persecutions in prison from your side ...
You seem to have totally forgotten that for years our shirts were
ripped off our backs because you did not like the color . . . In those
days, our newspapers were banned and banned and again banned, our
meetings were forbidden, and we were forbidden to speak, I was
forbidden to speak, for years on. And now you say that criticism is
salutary!"
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 writing. 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.
> Civilisation is not the use of force.
"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
>
> Non sequitur, whose house is it and what was the agreement when
>people entered it.
Five people chipped in one-fifth each and they all own it. They
didn't think they needed an agreement. They all assumed they would
each pay their own fair share for the expenses. If one of them turns
out to be a selfish libertarian that doesn't like that the others
should get rid of him.
>
> No they are not. A "nation" is a fictional entity created by force,
>not
>a real structure created by effort.
Who would pave the roads in your system?
>>
>> What could you be talking about. The poor were uneducated before
>> public education.
>
> Learn some history, they were getting better and better educated with
>literacy being the exception rather than the rule
> And so because the beneficiaries were smart it's OK to rob people?
The children of poor people who prove intelligent and productive
should be aided to become what they want to be in life. We should all
pay our fair share in taxes to finance this. We should do this whether
libertarians like it or not. We should ignore their gutter philosophy.
>
> Hitler made Germany so bankrupt he had to steal millions from the
>Jews and still had to start the war early to avoid going bankrupt
>before
>it started. The gold reserves tell the story.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie. And Hitler didn't care about gold or need it:
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
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...
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...
>>
>> See the house example above. If you don't want to pay your fair share
>> for the elecricity and other expenses you should be kicked out of the
>> house.
>
> It's my house and who are you to decide that paying for something I
>don't
>use is a fair share?
You should pay your fair share for street lights to light up the town
at night. If you don't like it we should force the taxes from you
anyway.
> You yourself said you don't know anyone who benefitted from it.
Only because I don't know anyone who went to school in NS Germany.
>
> He gave it to the poor because that's who it came from. Do you think
>an outlaw paid taxes.
Well I didn't there can be no corrupt government. But that doesn't
make libertarianism good.
> No he was a hero because he righted a wrong, specifically the one
>you champion.
But if you had a the power of the police on your side you could right
a lot of wrongs. "Might FOR Right" as King Arthur says.
>
> What checkmate, I've answered the question.
True, but it was in inadequate answer.
>
>> So you think
>> some rich guy should "own" the road and have the right to tell
>> trespassers to get off the road if he feels like it. This is what you
>> call "freedom".
>
> Well yes. If he paid for the land and for the road to be built he
>decides
The land belongs to all the citizens. There is no one to buy it from.
Individuals should only own a reasonable amount of land around their
house or business.
>what happens to it and who uses it. Mostly people who own roads charge
>to use them. Governments collect money by threatening murder, I prefer
>a toll.
I would much rather pay once a year then everyday at a toll booth.
And if they haul libertarians off who disagree good ridance.
> Lack of answer noted?
The Fuehrer redisributed some wealth if that is what you are griping
about. But the rich were still rich. He didn't believe in equality.
>
>> > If I cite evidence of this
>> >will
>> >you admit that just maybe they were parasitic?
>>
>> Your media is Jewish and nothing but one big hate campaign against
>> the best nation that ever existed.
>>
> Answer the question, if I cite evidence will you admit you're wrong?
If by "citing evidence" you mean proving me wrong, then of course
truth is truth. Your "evidence" will more likely be lying Jew
propaganda though.
>
> Why? It's my money and I'll lend it as I like. Neither you nor the
>government
>are better at doing that than me.
A good government would do it a lot better because there would be
zero interest. It would put the parasites out of business.
uri
strong should rule the world while the weak and poor should die.
uri
strong should rule the world while the weak and poor should die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIIBmight.shtml
Michael Price
<nothing that related to the post he replied to>
Coward.
Michael Price
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
What does that mean exactly? Capitalism doesn't put a value on
anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
information on what people value. It has no values of it's own,
and that's good. If "the system" has values seperate from the values
of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
otherwise) 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.
They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I don't
feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
> And they consider it good to pay
> they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
are free to pursue them.
> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> will work for the least pennies per hour.
No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
more valuable to their employer.
> They say everyone must
> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
> the fewest pennies.
And what is the alternative? That the people in Mexico and China
not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
forbidden this right?
> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
system.
> At least the
> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
> of starvation that is fine too.
And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
> You can always get more people. If
> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
> need to die off.
Which never happens. There is always more to do in a capitalist
society because there is always new things to invest in.
> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
could find, helping the poor. He reinvested his money in the
business continually, raising productivity and thus demand for
labour, helping the poor. He gave a job to one who couldn't
get one elsewhere, helping, who was it again? oh yes, the
poor. He didn't waste his money on frivolous expensive things,
which would have diverted capital and labour from producing
things neccesary and cheap. This makes things neccesary
and cheap even cheaper. Who buys those things? Mostly the poor.
> 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?
Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
That's a return of 0.9567404% annualised.
> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a
> reasonable share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
Yes. Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.
> 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?
Enough. Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay
for charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike
people being poor. When the government takes over poverty this
declines rapidly.
> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would
> have to pay for everything while most people would not pay
> one thin dime.
Where's you evidence for this? Most people are charitable.
> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
see as fair. If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
> It is part of having civilization.
Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses
than you.
> We have many laws that make things better for people.
> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
> hours.
And how does that make it better for me? Suppose I want to
work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
worth the higher rate? How is forbidding me to make a trade
a benefit?
> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
No there aren't.
> 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.
Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
capitalism.
> Capitalism is bad for people.
And Nazism is good?
Note that you posted this all before as "Polaris" and "Neptune3"
and I refuted it before. Yet you still post it, verbatim. Why?
I've clearly shown why it's rubbish so why keep posting it?
Michael Price
> On 4 Jan 2007 20:57:18 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, and you never explain why your version is actually something
> >anyone
> >should want.
>
> There should be prosperity and everything should look good.
But making everything look good, regardless of whether people care
about
whether it looks good enough to pay for it to look good, decreases
prosperity.
> Whites are happier among their own kind.
All of mankind is my kind. Even assuming that what you say is true,
how does that justify forcibly stealing property from people of other
races?
If you want to live in an all-white paradise, by all means by some land
and
gather there with your fellow inbred Nazi freaks.
> We should have a nation for Whites.
> Whites who already live around mostly Whites may not understand or
> appreciate what they have. If they lived where it is mostly non-White
> for a while they would get the picture.
>
But they clearly don't want to live in an all-white neighbourhood,
let
alone nation. Or at least they don't want to pay the costs of
excluding
non-whites.
> >
> >> I say law and order is good for one thing.
> >
> > So do I but your methods don't supply it. Under the State and
> >particularly under your version of the State there is no law and
> >what order there is
> >exist in spite of the State not because of it.
>
> I am not arguing in favor of the United States but of National
> Socialism. And that has law and order.
>
No, it had murder on a truly massive scale and a complete absence of
the rule of law. Judgements were made on what benefitted the State
not the legal facts of the case.
> >
> >> We should only have laws if
> >> they are beneficial of course. For example the law on only being
> >> allowed to shoot so many deer. If everyone shot all the deer they
> >> wanted all the time, deer would go exctinct.
> >>
> > And why would that be worse than me not getting to shoot more deer?
>
> Because I don't want the deer to go extinct.
>
So your preferences are the only important thing? Ahh... the
selflessness
of the collectivist.
> >Of course States are woeful at protecting species and if fact have
> >encourage the enviroment destruction that is the greatest cause of extinction.
>
> Libertarianism does that.
>
And yet it's government that caused most of the clearing of the
Amazon,
the biggest cause of destruction of species ever, as well as countless
other
cases. Where can you point to libertarianism actually destroying
species?
> >
> > Then why was it destroyed under his watch?
>
> Because parasites and others who profit from a corrupt system want
> corruption.
>
Not an answer, you claimed Hitler "made Germany great" (and then
snipped the claim while retaining the reply to it so as to destroy
context).
So why was it destroyed under his watch if it was so "great"?
>
> > If what I said was false then why do you claim the Germans were
> > baited into world war two, which clearly killed millions of people and
> > destroyed the country he supposedly loved?
>
> The International Jewish Boycott Conference assembled in Holland to
> discuss ways by which Jewish interests in Germany might be protected.
Even assuming that your summary is correct (and I'm sure it isn't)
what
you detail is a largely unsuccessful attempt to get people to
voluntarily
refrain from trade with Germany by Jews. That is not a reason to go to
war.
To respond to a boycott by a minority of a country with bombing of
another
country is moronic. If Hitler was not an idiot why try to justify
launching a
war (and staying in the war when given the option to get out of it) by
reference
to a trade boycott? If Germany can't survive not trading with Jews
then it
should have been nicer to them, especially since apparently they could
survive not trading with it.
<snip>
>
> > And yet in those countries you could criticise the government
> > without being tortured or indefinitely detained. Not so in Germany.
> > This is greatness?
>
>
> National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
> in regard to free speech laws.
And how is that a justification? In any case it's not true, people
could
publish things critical of the government in America or England but not
Germany.
> 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. Hitler said:
> "You talk about persecution!" (to an address by the Social Democratic
> speaker) "I think that there are only a few of us [in our party] here
> who did not have to suffer persecutions in prison from your side ...
And they were in prison for using violence against the State they
claimed to love!
> You seem to have totally forgotten that for years our shirts were
> ripped off our backs because you did not like the color . . . In those
> days, our newspapers were banned and banned and again banned, our
> meetings were forbidden, and we were forbidden to speak, I was
> forbidden to speak, for years on. And now you say that criticism is
> salutary!"
Tu quoque is not a valid argument.
> 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 writing. Saying that the races are not all equal in
> intelligence is against the law there.
>
No it isn't. In any case that doesn't justify anything.
> 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.
>
Again, how is that a justification?
> 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.
But the Jews don't control the media, customers do. If you know
anything
you'd know that.
> 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.
>
> > Civilisation is not the use of force.
>
> "Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
> they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
> inferior work and product.
Well no, they believe they'll sue for breach of contract.
> 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?
It's what some of the public demands, but that doesn't make it right.
If they demanded that all the Jews be burnt would that make it right?
Oh, yeah, forgot who I was talking to.
<snip>
> > No they are not. A "nation" is a fictional entity created by force,
> >not
> >a real structure created by effort.
>
> Who would pave the roads in your system?
>
For the fifth fucking time moron, whoever owns them!!!!
> >>
> >> What could you be talking about. The poor were uneducated before
> >> public education.
> >
> > Learn some history, they were getting better and better educated with
> >literacy being the exception rather than the rule
>
> > And so because the beneficiaries were smart it's OK to rob people?
>
> The children of poor people who prove intelligent and productive
> should be aided to become what they want to be in life.
Why? If they're so smart why do they need our help? If there's so
productive
why can't they loan the money for education and pay it back later? And
why
should the aid, if such is needed, come from robbing me?
> We should all pay our fair share in taxes to finance this. We should do this
> whether libertarians like it or not. We should ignore their gutter philosophy.
You call it a gutter philosophy but you're the one who puts what he
likes
ahead of what everyone else does and uses force to get it done. That's
the gutter.
>
> >
> > Hitler made Germany so bankrupt he had to steal millions from the
> >Jews and still had to start the war early to avoid going bankrupt
> >before
> >it started. The gold reserves tell the story.
>
> The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
> lie. And Hitler didn't care about gold or need it:
>
Then why did he steal it?<snip>
> >>
> >> See the house example above. If you don't want to pay your fair share
> >> for the elecricity and other expenses you should be kicked out of the
> >> house.
> >
> > It's my house and who are you to decide that paying for something I
> > don't use is a fair share?
>
> You should pay your fair share for street lights to light up the town
> at night. If you don't like it we should force the taxes from you
> anyway.
Non sequitur.
>
> > You yourself said you don't know anyone who benefitted from it.
>
> Only because I don't know anyone who went to school in NS Germany.
>
And you think they did? If you don't know any of them why claim that
they benefitted.
> >
> > He gave it to the poor because that's who it came from. Do you think
> > an outlaw paid taxes.
>
> Well I didn't there can be no corrupt government. But that doesn't
> make libertarianism good.
>
> > No he was a hero because he righted a wrong, specifically the one
> >you champion.
>
> But if you had a the power of the police on your side you could right
> a lot of wrongs.
But you wouldn't. And you don't think I would either, so given
neither
of us can be trusted controlling the police what makes you think anyone
can?
> "Might FOR Right" as King Arthur says.
>
And didn't that end well.
> >
> > What checkmate, I've answered the question.
>
> True, but it was in inadequate answer.
>
No it was perfectly adequate and that's why you snipped it.
> >
> >> So you think
> >> some rich guy should "own" the road and have the right to tell
> >> trespassers to get off the road if he feels like it. This is what you
> >> call "freedom".
> >
> > Well yes. If he paid for the land and for the road to be built he
> >decides
>
> The land belongs to all the citizens.
Prove it.
> There is no one to buy it from.
Which is why it was acquired by mixing labour with it. If one man
can't
acquire the rights to it by purchase how can many men acquire the
rights
to it? And if they can then why doesn't it belong to people of all
nations?
> Individuals should only own a reasonable amount of land around their
> house or business.
Prove it.
>
> >what happens to it and who uses it. Mostly people who own roads charge
> >to use them. Governments collect money by threatening murder, I prefer
> >a toll.
>
> I would much rather pay once a year then everyday at a toll booth.
How do you know if you don't know how much is charged.
> And if they haul libertarians off who disagree good ridance.
>
Yeah that's your answer to everything.
> > Lack of answer noted?
>
> The Fuehrer redisributed some wealth if that is what you are griping
> about.
And he did so by force. How is this not theft?
> But the rich were still rich. He didn't believe in equality.
>
Indeed, he stole from the poor as well.
> >
> >> > If I cite evidence of this will you admit that just maybe they
> >> > were parasitic?
> >>
> >> Your media is Jewish and nothing but one big hate campaign against
> >> the best nation that ever existed.
> >>
> > Answer the question, if I cite evidence will you admit you're wrong?
>
> If by "citing evidence" you mean proving me wrong, then of course
> truth is truth. Your "evidence" will more likely be lying Jew
> propaganda though.
So in other words I have to cite good aryans to prove my point?
>
> >
> > Why? It's my money and I'll lend it as I like. Neither you nor the
> >government are better at doing that than me.
>
> A good government would do it a lot better because there would be
> zero interest.
How is that good? Anyone worthy of a business loan is going to
get returns on the money. Why should that living be subsidised at
the expense of those who save and make it possible? Why should
I by forced to accept a zero interest rate on deposits when such
deposits make wealth creation possible? You really know less economics
than a rock.
> It would put the parasites out of business.
>
And who would give out such loans if not bribable parasites?
Michael Price
> March 14, 2005 Issue
> by Robert Locke
>
> libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole
> rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a
> clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make
> more money, have more sex, or take more drugs...
> The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple:
> freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in
> life.
And who said it was? The whole point of libertarianism is that
the good is best chosen freely by the individual, not that freedom
itself is the only or the most good thing.
> Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is
> not freedom, but one cannot live without it.
And how can someone be physically secure without freedom?
> Prosperity is connected
> to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the
> same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian
> tycoon's wife.
And how does that mean that freedom is less worthwhile?
> A family is in fact one of the least free things
> imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations
> that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen,
> entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice.
While people are born into a family they can leave it when they come
of
age. As for those that enter into familial relations afterwards (e.g.
marriage
or adoption) it is hardly lack of freedom that prevents their leaving,
but
the contracts they freely signed. Unless you mean the freedom to
break contracts, which libertarians don't argue for.
> But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness
> for most real people and the principal issues that concern
> governments...
Well you're half right, the security and prosperity of it's people
and their
families is not a principle issue of government.
> Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices
> presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national
> security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective.
Security is inherently individual, what is national security but the
knowledge that you're going to be made insecure by the same people
tommorrow as today? As for a "healthy culture" any culture that
hands government power over it to ensure it's "health" is sick indeed.
When has the efforts of government to make culture "healthy" produced
anything but the glorification of violance and obedience.
> It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts
> can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every
> pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?
Well isn't that what the government thinks it can do?
> the libertarian principle of "an it harm none, do as thou wilt"...
> Consider pornography:
> libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn't
> like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can't do is choose
> not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it...
By that argument I shouldn't have to live in a culture that is
brutalised
by the Bible. To argue that you have the right to live in a culture
that
doesn't produce anything that offends you is rediculous. By that
argument everyone has veto power on the expression of everyone
else's opinion.
> Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free
> society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?...
Then it's not a free society anymore. If the society doesn't contain
enough healthy men (and it will be men) who think it worth risking
their
lives to preserve it it will not survive long anyhow. In fact any
"free" society
that can't find people willing to defend it is likely not worth saving.
> Libertarianism's abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to
> bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow
> one to sell oneself into it.
Well that's arguable. Some libertarians believe this.
> (It has been possible at certain times in
> history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And
> libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with
> the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the
> abolition of compulsory education
Which treats the PARENTS like adults, not the children.
> and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex.
Actually the only change to child sex laws would be that people under
a
certain age could apply to a court to be recognised as adults. The
courts
do this now for things like running a business.
> It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.
Based on what?
> Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs,
> would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused
> trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or
> homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people
> were abolished.
And this is supported by what happened when drugs like cocaine were
legal.
> They claim a "natural order" of reasonable behavior
> would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would
> happen...
Actually there is considerable evidence that it would. For example
the
behaviour of people in disasters is overwhelmingly cooperative and
helpful despite the lack of
> And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative
> consequences of some of their free choices?
Well yes.
> While it is obviously fair
> to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the
> costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these
> outcomes.
What evidence is there that limiting either is "decent"? What is
"decent" about making someone's life worse?
> People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are
> taxed.
"Allowed to become"? That's generous. I mean they create benefits
for you and you only steal most of it.
> They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to
> starve.
Nor would they be under libertarianism, you could feed them if you
want.
This post is really a collection of strawmen, and not even original
ones.
> They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in
> order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative
> would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.
Crueler than Auschwitz? Crueler than Tuskeegee? Crueler than the
British concentration camps? The only real difference in how the
less fortunate are treated under libertarianism is that you are allowed
to help them, they are not simply cut off from any assistence.
> Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which
> is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Irony of
> ironies, people don't choose absolute freedom. But this refutes
> libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good
> as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it.
The freely and individually chosen. You do not get to chose for
other
people.
> Paradoxically,
> people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
And they have that right, they do not have the right to limit my
freedoms
merely because they don't want them for themselves.
> The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will
> support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be
> achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of
> authoritarian state,
No it could be achieved under anarchy.
> which rather puts the lie to libertarians' claim
> that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what's
> best for other people impose their values on the rest of us.
How so? It's true isn't it?
> Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one
> true political philosophy and all others are false.
And what is wrong with that? I don't make you live according to my
preferences.
> It entails
> imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and
> minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of
> except by leaving.
No, it imposes a certain class of societies.
> And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of
> bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in
> favor of that minted by private banks.
And what's "bizarre" about that? Government monopoly of the money
has done nothing but destroy the capacity of "legal tender" to store
value, act as a medium of exchange and fulfil all the functions of
money.
Private providers created money for years without much problems.
> But this has already been
> tried, in various epochs, and doesn't lead to any wonderful paradise
> of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement
> followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks
> that survive the inevitable shaking-out.
Actually no, that's what happened when the State gave special legal
powers to certain banks, which then abused them. The crisis that
plagued financial systems were far LESS common in free banking.
> Many other libertarian
> schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.
> A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naïve view of
> economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual
> history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to
> refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the
> second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most
> regulated economies,
Well no, it doesn't. And the most regulated sectors of the Japanese
economy are those LEAST able to support themselves.
> while nations in which government has essentially
> lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic
> paradises.
Actually Russia is a highly regulated economy where red tape
strangles every business that doesn't resort to bribery or outright
ignoring the rules.
> Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail
> going to the opposite extreme.
> Libertarian naïveté extends to politics. They often confuse the
> absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such.
And what is the difference.
> But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey
> to other more powerful individuals.
With a sufficently strong State it does so far more often.
> A weak state and a
> freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a
> chaotic Third-World tyranny.
And in any of those tyrannies does the government have limited
powers?
No, so stop smearing libertarianism with authoritarianisms shit.
> Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human
> desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more
> threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by
> some recreational drug use and work on Monday.
Actually no they don't. They are fully aware of how bestial people
can be,
that's why they don't want government to be able to unleash it.
> They assume that if
> people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially
> bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral
> of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their
> being free to refuse.
And do you think such lessons won't be taught to children without
government intervention? Government is the prime cause of people
losing the desire and ability to delay gratification.
> They forget that for much of the population,
> preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs,
> failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock.
And how are these people doing now? Well they're mostly drunk,
unemployed and have illegitimate kids. In fact more of them are like
that because they know you'll pay the bills for them.
> Society is
> dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into
> barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint.
No they don't because self restraint is not and is not caused by
government restraint. Saying that drugs should be legal is not the
same as saying they're a good choice, ditto random sex with strangers.
> Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the
> external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom,
> not more...
> libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of
> how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free
> choices are equal,
Bullshit. Libertarians have developed as many theories of how to
use freedom as their are libertarians because the root dogma is that
all free choices are the business of the person making them and trying
to make them for someone else is stupid.
uri
Michael Price
> Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
Under capitalism there is freedom of contract and the rule of law,
otherwise
they would be no secure ownership of property that capitalism needs to
function. To insist that this is even vaguely similiar to Nazism or
Stalinism
is rediculous.
Michael Price
> Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
>
> "The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
> principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
> consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
> the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
> all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
> The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression
> of the supranational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism,
> together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
> concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
> the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
> the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
> Jewish world-hydra.
> "The English situation is not so favorable. In that country
> which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
> unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
>
the other way.
uri
> Under capitalism there is freedom of contract and the rule of law,
> otherwisethey would be no secure ownership of property that capitalism needs to
> function. To insist that this is even vaguely similiar to Nazism or Stalinism is rediculous.
Capitalism is the terrorism of the market. It's based on greed, social
darwinism and cruelty to animals.
Topaz
wrote:
>Topaz wrote:
><nothing that related to the post he replied to>
>
> Coward.
Here is the post you refer to:
>I won't call Hitler and Stalin communists. Hitler wasn't a true
>socialist either. I would rather call them "terrorists".
My post proved that the NS were not "terrorists" and that they were
true socialists in the good way. Of course there is also plenty of
other things I could have chosen from.
ADOLF HITLER
NUREMBERG
SPEECH OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1936
I CAN come to no terms with a Weltanschhauung [bolshevism] which
everywhere as its first act after gaining power is - not the
liberation of the working people - but the liberation of the scum of
humanity, the asocial creatures concentrated in the prisons - and then
the letting loose of these wild beasts upon the terrified and helpless
world about them....
Bolshevism turns flourishing countrysides into sinister wastes of
ruins; National Socialism transforms a Reich of destruction and misery
into a healthy State and a flourishing economic life....
Russia planned a world revolution and German workmen would be used but
as cannon-fodder for bolshevist imperialism. But we National
Socialists do not wish that our military resources should be employed
to impose by force on other peoples what those peoples themselves do
not want. Our army does not swear on oath that it will with bloodshed
extend the National Socialist idea over other peoples, but that it
will with its own blood defend the National Socialist idea and thereby
the German Reich, its security and freedom, from the aggression of
other peoples.... The German people as soldiers is one of the best
peoples in the world: It would have become a veritable 'Fight to the
Death Brigade' for the bloody purposes of these international
disseminators of strife. We have removed this danger, through the
National Socialist Revolution, from our own people and from other
peoples....
These are only some of the grounds for the antagonisms which separate
us from communism. I confess: these antagonisms cannot be bridged.
Here are really two worlds which do but grow further apart from each
other and can never unite. When in an English newspaper a
Parliamentarian complains that we wish to divide Europe into two
parts, then unfortunately we are bound to inform this Robinson Crusoe
living on his happy British island that - however unwelcome it may be
- this division is already an accomplished fact.... That one should
refuse to see a thing does not mean that it is not there. For many a
year in Germany I have been laughed to scorn as a prophet; for many a
year my warnings and my prophecies were regarded as the illusions of a
mind diseased....
Bolshevism has attacked the foundations of our whole human order,
alike in State and society, the foundations of our conception of
civilization, of our faith and of our morals: all alike are at stake.
If this bolshevism would be content to promote this doctrine in a
single land, then other countries might remain unconcerned, but its
supreme principle is its internationalism and that means the
confession of faith that these views must be carried to triumph
throughout the whole world, i.e., that the world as we know it must be
turned upside down. That a British headline-writer refuses to
recognize this signifies about as much as if in the fifteenth century
a humanist in Vienna should have refused to admit the intention of
Mohammedanism to extend its influence in Europe and should have
objected that this would be to tear the world asunder - to divide it
into East and West. Unfortunately I cannot escape the impression that
most of those who doubt the danger to the world of bolshevism come
themselves from the East. As yet politicians in England have not come
to know bolshevism in their own country; we know it already. Since I
have fought against these Jewish Soviet ideas in Germany, since I have
conquered and stamped out this peril, I fancy that I possess a better
comprehension of its character than do men who have only at best had
to deal with it in the field of literature.... I have won my successes
simply because in the first place I endeavored to see things as they
are and not as one would like them to be; secondly, when once I had
formed my own opinion I never allowed weaklings to talk me out of it
or to cause me to abandon it; and thirdly, because I was always
determined in all circumstances to yield to a necessity when once it
had been recognized. Today when fate has granted me such great
successes I will not be disloyal to these funda- mental principles of
mine....
. . .: It is not necessary for me to strengthen the fame of the
National Socialist Movement, far less that of the German Army, through
military triumphs. He who is undertaking such great economic and
cultural tasks as we are and is so determined to carry them through
can find his fairest memorial only in peace.... But this bolshevism
which as we learned only a few months since intends to equip its army
so that it may with violence, if necessary, open the gate to
revolution amongst other peoples - this bolshevism should know that
before the gate of Germany stands the new German Army.... I believe
that as a National Socialist I appear in the eyes of many bourgeois
democrats as only a wild man. But as a wild man I still believe myself
to be a better European, in any event a more sensible one, than they.
It is with grave anxiety that I see the possibility in Europe of some
such development as this: democracy may continuously disintegrate the
European States, may make them internally ever more uncertain in their
judgment of the dangers which confront them, may above all cripple all
power for resolute resistance. Democracy is the canal through which
bolshevism lets its poisons flow into the separate countries and lets
them work there long enough for these infections to lead to a
crippling of intelligence and of the force of resistance. I regard it
as possible that then - in order to avoid something still worse -
coalition governments, masked as Popular Fronts or the like, will be
formed and that these will endeavor to destroy - and perhaps will
successfully destroy - in these peoples the last forces which remain,
either in organization or in mental outlook, which could offer
opposition to bolshevism.
The brutal mass-slaughters of National Socialist fighters, the burning
of the wives of National Socialist officers after petrol had been
poured over them, the massacre of children and of babies of National
Socialist parents, e.g. in Spain, are intended to serve as a warning
to forces in other lands which represent views akin to those of
National Socialism: such forces are to be intimidated so that in a
similar position they offer no resistance. If these methods are
successful: if the modern Girondins are succeeded by Jacobins, if
Kerensky's Popular Front gives place to the Bolshevists, then Europe
will sink into a sea of blood and mourning....
Topaz
>Fascism and Nazism are both "might is right", the assumption that the
>strong should rule the world while the weak and poor should die.
>
Utterly false. They say "might FOR right" like King Arthur.
And helping the weak and poor is the heroism they are about.
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:
"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).
...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 fficiency and, as such, were rewarded with great
success. For instance, the incidence of uberculosis
dropped dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20%
(Gregor, p. 259).
"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 ...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.
Topaz
Office of Racial Policy. He was speaking to a women's meeting at the
Gau Party Rally in Cologne on 13 October 1934. After this speech I
will make my comment on it.
My Dear German Women and Girls!
When Germans come together today to discuss the things that concern us
both as individuals and as a nation, it is a solemn occasion, whether
we wish it to be or not. During the political struggles of the past,
we could speak of party programs or of civilization without any
involvement of our soul.
Now we have forgotten how to approach an issue merely with our
understanding, merely with our mouth, merely with our heart. We have
become whole people once again. When we speak with others, we do so
with our full being.
That is what made the movement strong, and great, and powerful from
its first days. It is also that which the enemy on this side of the
border and the other cannot understand, and which it hates with deadly
strength. As this great and beautiful people's movement began, so too
began a hard and bitter struggle between enemy and German forces,
between an old world that is really long dead and buried, and the new
world that is struggling to reach the light through us. This struggle
has been going on in people's hearts and souls for years, and is
nowhere near its end. The world finds it difficult to understand that
which is at the center of our endeavors:
The value of blood and race.
Our enemies first laughed in pity, then in hatred as we spoke of it.
Let us speak of what we National Socialists mean by that so that it
will become clear why the German woman may be even more concerned
about these matters than the man, his state, and his fighting
organization can be.
There was a time in the past when we were untrue, untrue in the
deepest sense. We were untrue not to other people, or parties, or
states, or kings, but untrue to something far greater, untrue to the
laws of life. As long as the world exists, as long as life grows,
flourishes and perishes, so long will this life have the urge to live
on into the future and win new territory. Whether plant or animal or
man-as we, or I, or you:
wherever there is life, it has the longing to bring forth new life.
It should be unnecessary to speak of such things. We speak of them
only because for a few decades a crazy era ignored, blasphemed and
mocked these greatest, most beautiful and purest dreams of life. This
was an age that made the idol of money supreme and said: "The world
should be governed not be what serves life, rather by what some fool
of an accountant decides is best." We know the results. The great laws
of life were evaluated according to money sacks and checkbooks. When
we think back on our parents, grandparents and great grandparents,
there were many children in the house. It may have been crowded and
hard financially, but we were happy, perhaps because there were so
many of us in so large a family. But the time came when people said:
"As man or woman, as parents or teachers of leaders, you have the duty
to show the people the way to a better future." That better future,
people thought, could only be a richer future, a future in which the
individual had more money. And when they were asked where this money
would come from, a false teaching arose in the last century: "The
fewer people there are, the more an individual child can inherit from
his parents." He who loves his children and wishes a prosperous future
for his nation should therefore see to it that Germany's population is
small, and that only a few children continue the family after he is
gone. That was the terrible teaching of birth control, which Marxism
preached and the bourgeois followed. No one dared stand against it.
That was the doctrine that made us what we are today:
a dying people,
in which fewer children are born each year, in which today more people
die each year than are born. This all was supposed to lead to a happy
future. It understood happiness only in terms of possessions. It was
therefore inherently false. But even in its own terms it was false,
for it forgot something:
When a people begins to die, when a people no longer obeys the laws of
life, when a people values money more than its existence and
posterity, this people is on the path to disaster, both historically
and politically. Within a few decades it will be dead, oppressed by
other peoples who are stronger, closer to life, and who follow life's
laws better than we.
If present trends continue, by the end of the century Germany will be
a nation with only 40-50 million inhabitants,
and we know that on our borders other peoples are growing quickly and
strongly. Sooner or later, these other peoples will come in conflict
with a shrinking and dying German people, and the result of the
supposed doctrine of happiness will be a hard and bitter
national death for our children.
Those who believed that they can give their children a happy and
peaceful future by reducing the number of children err deeply. They
give the children only the promise of a hard and bitter struggle for
Germany's existence as a state and as an idea.
Today when we work to show people that the ideas of yesterday are
false, that the state and nation cannot do without the family, that
the family cannot exist without children, and when we not only provide
economic support to make it easier to begin families and have
children, but also tell people again and again of the sanctity of life
and the necessity of continuing our people into the future, our
enemies on both sides of the border suddenly have insults and hateful
things to say about us. They wish to disturb our work. Suddenly there
are voices saying: "National Socialism's doctrines are inhumane and
barbaric. National Socialism's views on children turn people into
breeding animals. When it says
that it is the duty of men and women to continue the eternal chain of
life, a chain that begins in the distant past and continues into the
future, a chain of which we are only a link leading into the distant
future,
our enemies on both sides of the border claim: "You reject the dignity
and value of humanity. National Socialism holds that men and women
have no value other than that of breeding cattle." It is a shame that
we have to respond to such words, but it is necessary because our
enemies have always tried to persuade women to oppose us, even though
what we say is rooted in the souls of the men and women we speak to.
This is our response: "You are mistaken in accusing us of thinking
that the only purpose of humanity is to continue the species by
passing on our blood to future generations. We know the other values.
We support them and find wherever we can those values that the
individual shows in his work and selfless service. We know well enough
that
each person lives a double life. The first is the one he lives between
birth and death. We are to do as much as we can to make this life
rich, to accomplish that which is good and beautiful, to use our
strengths and gifts for others. That is the duty of the individual.
But as a person you are something more:
You are a member of the chain of life, a drop in the great bloodstream
of your people.
There too you have duties and obligations before the eternity of the
nation. You have the duty to pass on what you received from your
parents and ancestors. I do not believe that such behavior, which
obeys both the laws of reason and of life, is barbaric, hateful or
inhumane. I believe instead that the barbarism is to be found in the
years we have left behind us, when any dirty lout could besmirch the
most valuable, holy life of a man or women in their families, or drag
children through the filth, without anyone defending their culture
against such an attack.
I believe that when we tell people once more of the great value of
blood, and remind them that they have duties not only for the 60-year
span in which they work and serve, but also to the millennia of the
past from which we come and to the millennia of the future to which we
are heading, then we are giving them higher values than those of
yesterday. Let me say also, however, that it is wrong if someone
thinks that only those who found families and bear children are
valuable to our state. We know that is not so. We know there are
reasons why some people leave their people's flow of blood. We know
that some are denied what the nation places great value on. We do not
ignore them or think ourselves their betters. We only say this: "My
friend, you and I must do our duty to our people, and when we cannot
fulfill it in one way, then we must do what we can with even greater
energy and devotion.
When you do your duty, you are one of us,
we extend our hand to you, we honor your humanity and your service for
Germany. Let us work together so that in the future, as many people as
possible will be able to serve the nation in both ways.
That is a piece of the thinking of blood and race that National
Socialism has taught us. And there is another aspect. When we see
people today, we can recognize that we are not all alike. There are
differences in value;
each person does not have the same value as everyone else.
In the past, people believed that these differences were superficial,
the result of the environment in which one grew up. People believed
that what became of a person depended primarily on the house he grew
up in or in his social environment, or the class he came from. They
believed that a person born in a slum, surrounded by shadows, troubles
and poverty, a child lacking in love and affection, could only become
a second-class human being, a physically and psychologically ill
member of the society, someone failed by the society and the state.
One thought that a child growing up in such slum inevitably became
sick, or even criminal. It was because he grew up in such a poor
environment. The Marxists claimed that if every child in Germany grew
up in an environment that gave him all he needed, he would inevitably
become a useful, decent, upright, proud and honest adult. After a few
years or decades, the entire German people would consist of such
decent and useful people. In the past people believed the environment
was responsible even when a person failed miserably.
We recall the days of delirium, when millions of unemployed had been
thrown on the street by a sick political and economic system, made
superfluous. A single person pried the tracks apart and derailed a
train in the middle of the night. Within a minute he murdered 30
innocent people who had never done anything to him, and stole their
money. And what did the world of yesterday say? "He can't help
himself. He is a victim of circumstances. He has Beethoven's hands and
an artistic temperament. We need not put him on the gallows or in
prison to protect us and our children. No, this poor Schlesinger is
only sick because of his environment. Put him in a modern sanitarium,
give him what he needs: radio, a library, a smoking salon, a language
teacher, a pastor, a newspaper room, give him everything he needs to
put him in touch with better things. In a few years, this mass
murderer of 30 people will leave as an ideal human being, so pure and
innocent that one can put him in charge of a kindergarten." That's
what people thought in the past.
Today that seems a bad joke to us, a crazy fantasy, but a few years
ago it was government policy in Germany. Those who did well under such
policies and have joined to fight us think that they can accuse our
doctrines of blood and race as barbaric.
Why do we see things differently? Because we have learned something:
In the end, you are not as important and significant as you thought
yesterday;
your strength and abilities are not as great as you believed during
the liberal era. Oh yes, it was a lovely dream to say: "I will do with
my life what I want, and if I happen to be a teacher, I will teach
what I want, and do what I enjoy, and what I think right." Well, that
was your idea of the environment.
We are a bit more modest, a bit more humble before the laws of fate.
We have learned that what I can do for myself or what you can do for
yourself, or what we can all do to each other, is not as important, or
as deep, as that which a greater power has already done to us. It is
that power that even before our birth gave us a part of our nature,
and laid out our path for us in the world. Here are joined two things:
the knowledge of modern science and the sensitivity and understanding
of a humble person. Suddenly we see that:
What you are, what I am and what I can be in my life is in part
predetermined by that which I have inherited.
If my inheritance is good and strong, and if I am true to it and
develop what is within me, my life will be successful, and perhaps of
benefit and joy to others. If such an inheritance is denied me, or if
for some inexplicable reason fate has given me other, perhaps weak,
perhaps even bad traits, I can struggle against them for my entire
life, and will still not be able to rid myself of that which slumbers
in me because of the actions of a higher power.
We see then that a good part of a people's history is determined by
what it has inherited. If we ask what sorts of physical or
intellectual traits these may be, or what groups there are, we will
see that each people has three groups. The first is a large group of
people with average gifts, the most of us who are able to deal with
the normal problems life presents us with. Next there is a very small
group. This group has received a better inheritance than most of us,
not because of any particular virtue on its part, but simply because
of fate. The leaders of humanity, those who build states, lead people,
or touch the soul, come from this group. And there is a third small
group with particular traits, also not their fault: those who are sick
or genetically defective. They are not up to the challenges of life,
and need outside help to survive.
As humanity of a nation goes through the centuries, the decisive fact
is which of these three groups is the strongest. One might say: "That
is not a question at all. The strongest will win, the group from which
the leaders come. This superior group has to be the strongest in the
end, it must gradually have its way." Well, that is how things would
be without people, if people with their little brains did not believe
that they could change the laws of life given to the world by heaven.
Man has interfered in these matters. He has tried to change the laws
of struggle and existence and selection. Those were ancient laws of
life, to which men too were subject:
That which cannot meet the challenges dies.
That is hard, perhaps, but it is also the way that nature makes life
stronger and better. Man has tried more and more to abolish these
laws. He has kept life going by using artificial means in cases where,
left to itself, it would have ended. He used all his understanding,
love and sympathy to keep a person alive, even when it is no joy, but
only a burden and misery. We now keep thousands, even tens of
thousands of unhappy creatures alive through artificial means, those
to whom life itself has denied the right to life. But keeping them
alive was not itself the problem. What is worse is that they were
given the opportunity to pass on their unfortunate physical and mental
characteristics. That was the worst that happened: we took the
physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically defective criminals
and not only kept them alive and cared for them-that is our duty as
human beings, which we certainly do not want to ignore in the future
either-and gave them the ability to have children with the same
deficiencies, thus doubling or multiplying their misery. The German
people do not know the extent of this misery, it does not know the
depressing spirit of the homes where thousands of cripples live their
lives only by being fed and cared for, poor creatures who are worse
than any animal. The animal at least is as it should be. These poor
creatures are distortions of life, no joy either to themselves or
others. They are a burden throughout their miserable existences, but
thanks to the selfless care and devotion of those who care for them
may live 60, 70 or 80 years. The German people do not realize the
enormous sums that have been spent for decades, money that is taken
from those who are healthy, who could do something useful, but cannot
because the money is lacking.
There was a winter in which children in Bavaria did not even have
wooden shoes to wear as they walked through the snow on their way to
school. They had to walk for hours bare-footed. At the same time, the
government made sure that those unfortunate souls in a large
institution had fresh bananas twice a week so that they got the
necessary vitamins. But these vitamins could not give them joy or
strength or health. But they were thus denied to those somewhere in
the Bavarian forest, or in the Ruhr, or in a poor fishing village on
the Frisian coast, where they could have reduced the poverty and need
in some worker's house. At the same time there was a case where
a single mentally ill Negro of English citizenship lived for 16 years
in an institution in Berlin, costing 26,000 Marks.
26,000 Marks were thrown away on a life that had no meaning. 26,000
Marks that could have been used to prepare a dozen strong, healthy and
gifted children for life and a job.
But I am not speaking of this as a kind of theft. Money is not an end
in itself. Rather, we have here committed a theft of spirit and soul,
because we tried to persuade the nation and humanity that our own
greatness could come from sacrificing for the worst and most helpless.
In the end, we went so far as
to put the sick and the dying before the young, strong, healthy and
promising.
That is against nature and life. A nation going this way is heading
for the abyss. We went so far as to preach year after year to healthy
families that they should have no children, or at most one, else they
sinned against the nation and the spirit of this enlightened age. But
if some imbecile of a whore and a genetically ill criminal had
children, they were not only a financial burden for their entire
lives, but also took the labor of people who our society gave nothing
better to do than to change these poor creatures three times a day and
feed them. That is a perversion of everything great and healthy, and
is a sin against life and the spirit of creation.
With full knowledge of our duties as human beings and the requirements
of pity, we made the decision not to allow such miserable creatures to
pass on their misery to the next generation, multiplied perhaps two or
three or more times. That is a major accomplishment, for which our
children and their children will one day thank us.
I know that there are those who will say: "You are meddling in matters
that are not your concern. You are interfering in an area outside
human control. Life and death are not in the hands of man, but in
those of a higher power. If God wants sick and genetically ill people
to be born, you may not interfere through laws, operations, or any
other measures with God's will. And if you do so-and you have with
your Law to Prevent Inherited Illness-then you are acting against the
will of God, and you are heretics."
This is our answer: "My friend, you are wrong. It is true that we are
subject to a higher power. We humans may never interfere with the
great laws of the Creator. But you are wrong. See the laws the Creator
has established for his world and your life. The great law is that
life must be able to preserve itself, and that if it cannot, it will
collapse. It is the hard, brutal law of the struggle for existence and
of selection and extinction. It was the law we saw day by day, hour by
hour, under all the clouds of heaven and all the stars of the sky, in
which life seemed to find a senseless death, whether plant or animal
or person, whether in distant Africa or near us.
That which cannot meet the challenges of life dies, no matter how much
pain it causes,
and even if your small understanding or mind cannot comprehend it,
these are the great laws of life and the world that God himself gave
us. These are the laws, my German friend, that in our crazy fantasies
we broke in the past."
With overweening human pride and false pity, we broke the great law
and kept those alive who under the laws of God would long since have
perished.
Today we are once more following these old laws, using humane methods,
for they follow a more hard and brutal course in nature according to
God's will. We are doing nothing more than reestablishing the laws of
creation, and bowing to the heavenly order. We are thus showing piety
and true humility-you are the heretics.
This applies as well to the third and last principle of our racial
thinking. This third and last principle is that the people on this
world, in America, Africa or China, are different both in body and
soul. They are not equal, as yesterday's lie had it.
People are different.
They not only speak different languages and look different: no, they
are different in the depths of their hearts and natures, and in their
abilities for good and evil. In the past people believed that these
differences were accidental, the result of climate or civilization,
and that one could overcome these differences and create a unified man
in a unified state in which all would be equally happy. We have
learned that such ideas are false. We have learned that the
differences between the major blood groups of the world, between the
major races, are not the result of human action, but of the laws of
Creation. We have learned that the lines between blood and blood, race
and race, are also the lines between soul and soul and spirit and
spirit. We have learned that the opposite of the old phrase "What God
has brought together, let no man put asunder" is also true. We have
learned:
What God has separated, man should not bring together.
Heaven thought it good not to have only one type of people on the
earth, but different kinds, various racially-bound peoples. That is a
part of Creation. We bow before this truth and respect the borders.
That means that the foundation of our separation of the races is not a
matter of politics or economics, rather it rests on a higher level, to
which we in the end are responsible.
In our Reich, we are separating that which belongs to us, because it
is blood of our blood, from that which does not belong to us, because
it is foreign. We are doing that which is right not only for the
moment, but for eternity.
Believe me, my dear German fellow citizens, it is not true, as some
say, that this doctrine is a sign of arrogance or superiority or
boasting. We do not think ourselves better than the other races on the
earth. No, we do not think ourselves better, nor do we believe that
others are worse than we are. We insist only on one thing-a law
established by the Creator himself:
Man differs from man and race from race in this world.
The others may not be better or worse, but they are different than we
are, and because they are different than we are, there is a kind of
wall between us that is part of the laws of life. That is the core of
National Socialism's racial thinking. Our goal is not to insult
others, to say: "What a great guy I am!" Rather, we hold to the humble
recognition that each healthy piece of life has its corner of the
world, and its special tasks. This is just as true of humans as it is
of plants and animals in all their multiplicity. We know that one type
is no more valuable than another. But we also know that each variety
of life has a right to existence only as long as it keeps itself pure
and strong. Only when a tree bears the proper fruit does it have a
right to live. Otherwise it will be cut down and destroyed. We do not
know why things are the way they are, and it would be foolish to ask
the reason. That is how things are. Our task is to humbly accept the
laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that we
are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos. That is not
because of our virtues, nor it is our fault, nor was it our will. It
was fate that came from above. We have no choice but to accept this
fate and to develop the abilities that fate has given us according to
necessity and law.
Others may develop in their own way, in their own land. We must listen
to the depths of our own people, to draw from blood and inheritance
the strength we need to build our homeland. A higher power will take
care of the life beyond.
I believe, my dear German fellow citizens, that everyone who is of our
spirit will grant the correctness of our thinking about blood and
race, and will say: "I see now that you are not only on the right
path, but are honest and in the deepest sense true to demands that are
greater than the laws of man."
Let us then together follow the path to a new worldview. Let us go the
path of blood and race, which does not ignore faith and knowledge and
a sense of higher powers. Let us go this path, not a path of matter,
superstition and heresy, rather a path of deep humility and piety
before the laws of God. Let us go along this path together and listen
to the deepest depths where blood and soul rule. Let us draw from
there the strength to build the state, and even more important the
Reich. It will be a Reich not only of politics, a Reich of
organization, or the economy, but a Reich of people. Germany today has
the fortune to find a new way, led by a great Fuehrer. German women
today have the good fortune to see a strong and loyal woman at their
head. Let us together go forward, hand in hand, as befits comrades
building the future, and let us join the strength of men and women,
rooted deep in their blood, to build what the world has never before
seen:
The holy Reich of the German soul.
Heil!
My comment:
In the past there was survival of the fittest and humans evolved
into higher beings with that. But it was a cruel world. Notice in the
above speech that he did say:
"we took the physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically
defective criminals and not only kept them alive and cared for
them-that is our duty as human beings, which we certainly do not want
to ignore in the future either"
Survival of the fittest should be replaced by sterilization. We would
still evolve into higher beings, but this way is much more humane.
We should take care for those who need help and many work hours
would be done to provide for them, and all we ask in return is for
them not to pass their misfortune onto more generations. We are not
asking too much at all.
It was a great speech. These policies that would make a nation
unimaginably great, a heaven on earth. Heil Hitler.
Topaz
The Creators of the World's Misfortunes
by Joseph Goebbels
One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind
the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural
forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and
keep humanity in the dark. It is so to speak the mortar that holds the
enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class,
ideology and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish
roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same
fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the
nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public
opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is
plain to see that it may never be named in newspapers, speeches and
radio broadcasts. There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes
anti-Semitism - or in plain English, public education about the Jewish
Question - by death. The expert in these matters is in no way
surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New
Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid
throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its
goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the
nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a
discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty.
It is little different in the plutocratic nations. There the struggle
against the impudent usurpation of the Jewish race is not punished by
the executioner, rather by death through economic and social boycott
and by intellectual terror. This has the same effect in the end.
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were made by the Jewry. They enjoy its
full support and reward it with their full protection. They present
themselves in their speeches as upright men of civil courage, yet one
never hears even a word against the Jews, even though there is growing
hatred among their people as a result of this war, a hatred that is
fully justified. Jewry is a tabu theme in the enemy countries. It
stands outside every legal boundary and thus becomes the tyrant of its
host peoples. While enemy soldiers fight, bleed and die at the front,
the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and
black markets. If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the
Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press,
chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into
public contempt. Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They
want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world: to give Jewry
absolute power and freedom from prosecution. He who objects or even
debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe
through his neck. There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the
epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the
nations that deserve freedom.
That is all long behind us. Yet it still threatens us in the distance.
We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the
Reich, but they have not given up. They did not rest until they had
mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer
conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every
Russian, English and American soldier is a mercenary of this world
conspiracy of a parasitic race. Given the current state of the war,
who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front
for the national interests of their countries! The nations want a
decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of
the war would mean the dawning knowledge of humanity of the unhealthy
role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out
this war. They fear being unmasked, which has in fact become
unavoidable and must inevitably come, just as the day follows the
night. That explains their raging bursts of hatred against us, which
are only the result of their fear and their feelings of inferiority.
They are too eager, and that makes them suspicious. International
Jewry will not succeed in turning this war to its advantage. Things
are already too far along. The hour will come in which all the peoples
of the earth will awake, and the Jews will be the victims. Here too
things can only go so far.
It is an old, often-used method of International Jewry to discredit
education and knowledge about its corrupting nature and drives,
thereby depending on the weaknesses of those people who easily confuse
cause with effect. The Jews are also masters at manipulating public
opinion, which they dominate through their network of news agencies
and press concerns that reaches throughout the world. The pitiful
illusion of a free press is one of the methods they use to stupefy the
publics of enemy lands. If the enemy press is as free as it pretends
to be, let it take an open position, for or against, on the Jewish
Question. It will not do that because it cannot and may not do so. The
Jews love to mock and criticize everything except themselves, although
everyone knows that they are most in need of public criticism. This is
where the so-called freedom of the press in enemy countries ends.
Newspapers, parliaments, statesmen and church leaders must be silent
here. Crimes and vices, filth and corruption are covered by the
blanket of love. The Jews have total control of public opinion in
enemy countries, and he who has that is also master of all of public
life. Only the nations that have to accept such a condition are to be
pitied. The Jews mislead them into believing that the German nation is
backward. Our alleged backwardness is actually proof of our progress.
We have recognized the Jews as a national and international danger,
and from this knowledge have drawn compelling conclusions. This German
knowledge will become the knowledge of he world at the end of this
war. We think it our primary duty to do everything in our power to
make that happen.
Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull
and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the
incarnation of that destructive force that in these terrible years has
guided the enemy war leadership in a fight against all that we see as
noble, beautiful and worth keeping. For that reason alone the Jews
hate it. They despite our culture and learning, which they perceive as
towering over their nomadic worldview. They fear our economic and
social standards, which leave no room for their parasitic drives, They
are the enemy of our domestic order, which has excluded their
anarchistic tendencies. Germany is the first nation in the world that
is entirely free of the Jews. That is the prime cause of its political
and economic balance. Since their expulsion from the German national
body has made it impossible for them to shake this balance from
within, they lead the nations they have deceived in battle against us
from without. It is fine with them, in fact it is part of their plan,
that Europe in the process will lose a large part of its cultural
values. The Jews had no part in their creation. They do not understand
them. A deep racial instinct tells them that since these heights of
human creative activity are forever out of their reach, they must
attack them today with hatred. The day is not distant when the nations
of Europe, yes, even those of the whole world, will shout: The Jews
are guilty for all our misfortunes! They must be called to account,
and soon and thoroughly!
International Jewry is ready with its alibi. Just as during the great
reckoning in Germany, they will attempt to look innocent and say that
one needs a scapegoat, and they are it. But that will no longer help
them, just as it did not help them during the National Socialist
revolution, The proof of their historical guilt, in details large and
small, is so plain that they can no longer be denied even with the
most clever lies and hypocrisy.
Who is it that drives the Russians, the English and the Americans into
battle and sacrifices huge numbers of human lives in a hopeless
struggle against the German people? The Jews! Their newspapers and
radio broadcasts spread the songs of war while the nations they have
deceived are led to the slaughter. Who is it that invents new plans of
hatred and destruction against us every day, making this war into a
dreadful case of self-mutilation and self-destruction of European life
and its economy, education and culture? The Jews! Who devised the
unnatural marriage between England and the USA on one side and
Bolshevism on the other, building it up and jealously ensuring its
continuance? Who covers the most perverse political situations with
cynical hypocrisy from a trembling fear that a new way could lead the
nations to realize the true causes of this terrible human catastrophe?
The Jews, only the Jews! They are named Morgenthau and Lehmann and
stand behind Roosevelt as a so-called brain trust. They are named
Mechett and Sasoon and serve as Churchill's money bags and order
givers. They are named Kaganovitsch and Ehrenburg and are Stalin's
pacesetters and intellectual spokesmen. Wherever you look, you see
Jews. They march as political commisars behind the Red army and
organize murder and terror in the areas conquered by the Soviets. They
sit behind the lines in Paris and Brussels, Rome and Athens, and
fashion their reins from the skin of the unhappy nations that have
fallen under their power.
That is the truth. It can no longer be denied, particularly since in
their drunken joy of power and victory the Jews have forgotten their
ordinarily so carefully maintained reserve and now stand in the
spotlight of public opinion. They no longer bother, apparently
believing that it is no longer necessary, that their hour has come.
And this is their mistake, which they always make when think
themselves near their great goal of anonymous world domination.
Thoughout the history of the nations, whenever this tragic situation
developed, a good providence saw to it that the Jews themselves became
the grave diggers of their own hopes. They did not destroy the healthy
peoples, rather the sting of their parasitic effects brought the
realization of the looming danger to the forefront and led to the
greatest sacrifices to overcome it. At a certain point, they become
that power that always wants evil but creates good. It will be that
way this time too.
The fact that the German nation was the first on earth to recognize
this danger and expel it from its organism is proof of its healthy
instincts. It therefore became the leader of a world struggle whose
results will determine of fate and the future of International Jewry.
We view with complete calm the wild Old Testament tirades of hatred
and revenge of Jews throughout the world against us. They are only
proof that we are on the right path. They cannot unsettle us. We gaze
on them with sovereign contempt and remember that these outbursts of
hate and revenge were everyday events for us in Germany until that
fateful day for International Jewry, 30 January 1933, when the world
revolution against the Jews that threateend not only Germany, but all
the other nations, began.
It will not cease before it has reached its goal. The truth can not be
stopped by lies or force. It will get through. The Jews will meet
their Cannae at the end of this war. Not Europe, rather they will
lose. They may laugh at this prophecy today, but they have laughed so
often in the past, and almost as often they stopped laughing sooner or
later. Not only do we know precisely what we want, we also know
precisely what we do not want. The deceived nations of he Earth may
still lack the knowledge they need, but we will bring it to them. How
will the Jews stop that in the long run? They believe their power
rests on sure foundations, but it stands on feet of clay. One hard
blow and it will collapse, burying the creators of the misfortunes of
the world in its ruins.
Topaz
>> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
>> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
>
>What does that mean exactly?
Capitalism is supply and demand. It's against having any laws or
programs that might favor people over material.
> Capitalism doesn't put a value on
>anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
>information on what people value. It has no values of it's own,
Exactly, it has no values.
>and that's good. If "the system" has values seperate from the values
>of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
>and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
>otherwise) 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.
>
> They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
>to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I
>don't feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
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
>
>> And they consider it good to pay
>> they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
>
> And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
>it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
>labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
>are free to pursue them.
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.
>
>> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
>> will work for the least pennies per hour.
>
> No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
>more valuable to their employer.
>
>> They say everyone must
>> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
>> the fewest pennies.
>
> And what is the alternative? That the people in Mexico and China
>not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
>forbidden this right?
We should not go down to their level. Every nation should do the
best it can for it's people and not have capitalism.
>
>> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
>> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
>
> Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
>system.
At one time it may have allowed most people to survive. But with the
machines we have today that is no longer the case.
>
>> At least the
>> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
>> of starvation that is fine too.
>
>And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
Having a minimum wage for one thing is not having capitalism. Not
that a minimum wage is exactly my plan but the point is that the USA
and countries like that are certainly not capitalist, and people do
starve and die in real capitalism.
>
>> You can always get more people. If
>> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
>> need to die off.
>
> Which never happens. There is always more to do in a capitalist
>society because there is always new things to invest in.
(an interview with William L. Pierce)
WLP: The economy will become worse in that the average White family
will work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the
necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than
before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue
to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is
something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent
election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing
the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order,
in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with
Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American
industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much
lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise
wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States. But,
then, that's the whole rationale behind the push for globalization,
the push for the New World Order, isn't it? Equalize living standards
around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and
drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and
the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial
barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally.
That's the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by
the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled
media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they've made
it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled
political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or
Republican, dares oppose it.
KAS: So it's this bipartisan push for a global economy which leads you
to predict that the US economy will continue to decline, no matter
which party is in the White House?
WLP: That's one of the reasons, and it's an important reason, but
there are also others. There is the continuing, unchecked flood of
non-White immigration into America, for example. There's the continued
policy of favoritism shown to non-Whites in university admissions, in
the awarding of scholarships, in hiring, and in promotions. And
there's the growing burden of supporting an unproductive and largely
non-White welfare class. All of these reasons for future economic
decline are thoroughly entrenched, they're long-term, and they're
bipartisan reasons. Which is to say that they're Politically Correct,
and so neither the Democrats nor the Republicans dare do anything
about them. Can you imagine either a Democrat or a Republican
proposing that we cut off all non-White immigration into the United
States and try to restore America as a White country? ... There's no
more chance of that than there is of either a Democrat or a Republican
President announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to
reduce the White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon
and the Chinese coolie and that we'll have no part of it. And because
there's simply no chance that the controlled political establishment
in this country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit
the existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living
standard of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the
economy will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various
paper-shuffling tricks, of course--fiddling with interest rates,
changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget--which can
make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they
can't cure this contry's real economic problems.
KAS: That's interesting. But you know, the so-called economic
"experts" that we hear on the controlled media disagree with you
completely. They tell us that this recession is just a little anomaly,
a little readjustment, and that over the long run everything is rosy.
They say that the globalization of our economy is helping America by
allowing us to export more of our products. They say that non-White
immigration is boosting our economy by providing us with needed skills
and eager workers. Here's a recent issue of Business Week; the
headline on the cover says, "The immigrants: how they're helping the
U.S. economy." Are the media experts wrong?
WLP: Yes, they're wrong, and what's worse they know they're wrong.
They're deliberately lying to us, deliberately misleading us, just as
much as the politicians are. It doesn't take a genius to see what's
happened to the economy of this country since the Second World War.
The experts rave about the benefits the new World Order is bringing to
us by allowing us to increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality
is that globalization has brought us an enormous trade deficit. The
fact is that it has wiped out whole industries in this country and
exported them overseas: the consumer electronics industry, for
example, or the machine tool industry. The fact, not the theory, is
that millions of Americans are being forced to switch from high-paying
jobs in manufacturing and basic industry to low-paying service jobs.
The fact is that before the Second World War most American families
needed only one wage earner to keep them comfortable and secure; wives
and mothers could stay at home and take care of their families. Today,
of course, most mothers have to work outside the home. The fact is
that our economy isn't getting better and better; it's actually
getting sicker and sicker.
KAS: You keep referring to the changes which have taken place in the
economy since the Second World War. Why is that? What does the war
have to do with it?
WLP: The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was,
after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a
war between two fundamentally different world views. On one side were
the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers
that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to
maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position
of world mastery. On the other side were the believers in quantity
over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural
equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States
to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world
empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism,
wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the
fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War
White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry,
non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could
justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground
right out from under themselves.
KAS: Of course, that's not the way it was presented to Americans back
in the 1940s. We were all taught that we went to war to keep America
free, that we were fighting against tyranny, that we were fighting on
the side of decency and justice.
WLP: Nonsense. We were fighting on the side of the folks who marched
the entire leadership stratum of the Polish nation into the woods and
murdered them. And the people who control our news and entertainment
media knew that too. When the German Army discovered those huge pits
full of murdered Polish officers and intellectuals, they called in the
world press to look at the evidence. But the controlled media kept it
quiet, so that we would keep fighting on the side of the murderers.
After the war they blamed it on the Germans. And there was nary a
squawk from the controlled media when we turned the surviving Poles,
and the Hungarians, and the Balts, and all the rest of the Eastern
Europeans over to the same gang of cutthroats who had butchered
Poland's leaders in 1940. Of course, it made sense in a sick sort of
way. After all, murdering a nation's elite is an egalitarian act.
After you kill off the most intelligent, the most able members of a
nation the ones who're left will be more nearly equal.
KAS: And easier to control.
WLP: Yes. But the point is that, the reasons given to the American
people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It
was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren't in the slightest
danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an
ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern
the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and
strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican
peons aren't as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a
real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation. The
loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the
U.S. economy--and of our social life, our cultural life, and our
spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country
determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that
determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it aws wrong of
us to want to stay White. After the war when the controlled media
began pushing for so-called "civil rights" laws and for opening our
borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push
to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poalnd a
more "equal" country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits
in the Katyn woods. We don't really have time today to trace the whole
process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at
a few examples which more or less tell the story. We've been talking
about the economy, but it's really our whole society which has been
corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought.
Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of
White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities
with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our
own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.
Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily
nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live
in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime
has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their
lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by
night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed
with caution and be always on guard. We know who makes our streets
unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We
know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at
night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes
such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is
interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for
exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it
cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the
causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect. Just as the
government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments
but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the
sociologists talk about "poverty" as the cause of urban crime, but
dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a
racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at
popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should
be? It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so
they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens.
It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors,
about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a
feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for
the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach
them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people. But
most of the schools in America's cities cannot do these things. They
are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things
are all profoundly racist, the controlled media tell us. The only kind
of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a
school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed
by our government after the Second World War, because they are
contrary to the principles for which that war was fought. When our
kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from
the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon
meeting a friend, "hey, man, gimme five," we're paying the price of
the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the
breakdown of America was not what's happened to our economy, but
what's happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism,
to our character. White Americans haven't become more stupid in the
last 50 years. Most of the people listening to this program understand
exactly what I'm saying. They didn't really need me to point it out to
them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn't take a genius to
understand why our schools aren't working or why the New World Order
will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more
prosperous. But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up
and say these things when we've had it drummed into our heads that we
always must be Politically Correct. The people listening to this
program have for years been watching America being torn down. They
have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society.
They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and
worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the
controlled politicians tell them that what's needed to fix things is
more of the same. And they've thought to themselves, this is crazy.
But they've been afraid to say that out loud. They've been afraid to
say, "Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn't have any clothes on." And
it's my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go
along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the
politicians, even when we know it's unnatural and immoral and
destructive of everything worthwhile--this is a spiritual failure.
This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more
serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are
able to heal ourselves spiritually, we'll be able to heal ourselves
economically and socially, but not before.
KAS: Is this spiritual failure entirely the fault of the American
people? You've repeatedly referred to the controlled media as the
principal promoters of the ideology which is at the root of our
problems. Aren't they to blame? Aren't the people who control the
media responsible for what's happening to America? And, by the way,
who are these media controllers?
WLP: Well, I think we all know who wields more control over the news
and entertainment media than any other group. It's the Jews. And, yes,
they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not
even most of it. After all, they're only acting in accord with their
nature. They're doing what they always do when they come into a
country. We shouldn't have let them do it. We should have stopped them
when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have
stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the
Second World War. After the war we shouldn't have let them get
anywhere near a television studio. But we didn't stop them, and the
blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as
our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They
sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful,
anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of
MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington who
let him get away with it? Personally, I'd go after the politicians
first.
KAS: I see your point. Tell us, Dr Pierce, do you think there's any
hope that White Americans ever will go after the politicians who are
betraying them? Do you think they ever will regain enough spiritual
strength to stand up and say, "Hey, the emperor is naked"?
WLP: I do. I believe that one day they'll be shouting it from the
housetops. More people are angry today about what their government is
doing to America than at any time since the Second World War. As time
passes their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable,
because the policies of the controlled media and the government are
making America an unlivable place. The condition of the economy helps
too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could
patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know
that they can't. I know that conditions can only become worse and
worse under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of
who's in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the
future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will
overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most
timid White American.
>
>> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
>> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
> Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
>could find, helping the poor. He reinvested his money in the
>business continually, raising productivity and thus demand for
>labour, helping the poor. He gave a job to one who couldn't
>get one elsewhere, helping, who was it again? oh yes, the
>poor. He didn't waste his money on frivolous expensive things,
>which would have diverted capital and labour from producing
>things neccesary and cheap. This makes things neccesary
>and cheap even cheaper. Who buys those things? Mostly the poor.
Spin, see the movie.
>
>> 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?
>
> Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
>it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
>That's a return of 0.9567404% annualised.
For one thing investing should be abolished. Business loans should
be from the government and at zero interest. Banks are parasites:
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 existence 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. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. 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 existence, 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 for World 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 Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
>
>> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a
>reasonable
>> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
>
> Yes. Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
>who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.
Someone must be reasonable and it is certainly not the capitalists.
>
>> 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?
>
> Enough. Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay
>for charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike
>people being poor. When the government takes over poverty this
>declines rapidly.
We should pay our fair share.
>
>> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would
>> have to pay for everything while most people would not pay
>> one thin dime.
>
> Where's you evidence for this? Most people are charitable.
Would you want to pay more than your fair share or less?
>
>> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
>
> No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
>see as fair. If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
>
>> It is part of having civilization.
>
> Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses
>than you.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.
By Shaun Walker.
The point is that all we actually seek is White
self-determination in our own territory, like every other race.
How much more reasonable can that be?
No one questions the self-determination Indians have on their
reservations.
No one questions the right to self-determination for the Eskimos
(Inuit) in the far North of Canada. Hell no. The Canadian
government has even passed laws to grant the Eskimos control over
a vast expanse of territory which the non-Whites claimed.
This model exists throughout the world: everywhere you go, you
will find assorted non-White races and groups all successfully
claiming their right to self determination, all with the support
of the liberals and even other non-Whites.
The Palestinians are a case in point. Most politically-prominent
Negroes in America support the Palestinians having a separate
state, and object to the Palestinians being ruled by the Zionist
Jewish state. And rightly so. In this demand, they are joined by
the White extreme left-wing of the political spectrum.
Yet, you will not find one of these White extremist left-wingers
supporting the concept of a territory for White people in which
they can have self-determination. Liberal hypocrisy is as
boundless as time.
If we, or anyone else who supports White self-determination,
raises the issue of White separatism with any of these non-White
groups, or the left-wingers of any race, we are dismissed as
"White supremacists" or "haters" or what-ever word they like to
use at that moment in time.
But honestly, we don't care much about what they call us. We know
what we need, and we work day and night to achieve it. Why should
we be ashamed of being White? On the contrary, we are proud of
our race, the race that has produced every single great
scientific innovation on the planet. Our race has produced all
the greatest works of art, and it is our aesthetic norms that
dominate the entire world…
White nationalists who look at this
fact closely, can quickly become discouraged and come to the
conclusion that White separatist activity is pointless. But they
are forgetting an important message given to us by our founder,
Dr. William Pierce.
He told us, in no uncertain terms, that when we work for our new
society, we should not be discouraged by what we see around us.
We work, Dr. Pierce said, not for what it is now - otherwise we
would be conservatives - but rather we work for what can be.
Dr. Pierce used the analogy of a garden, overrun with weeds. A
gardener, who sees only weeds, might give up without even trying.
A visionary, who sees the blades of grass and roses lying half
submerged in the weeds, and who conceptualizes a grand garden,
free of weeds and sprouting new life, the re-growth of Nature's
glory, is the true carrier of our racial renewal and the rebirth
of our Aryan Folk.
No, we are not conservatives who seek to preserve the existing
order. To hell with the existing order - it is corrupt, decadent,
and must fall. We don't want to preserve the obviously failed,
existing social construct; we wish to see a new society, in which
merit and merit alone determines political leadership, not with
how the current establishment promotes the best liars to the top.
We do not seek to maintain the existing raceless order, or to go
back to the days of segregation. We know and understand fully
that segregation, as well-intentioned as it might have been, was
a recipe for disaster.
We don't seek to rule over anybody but ourselves, and we need
racial separation in our own areas, and not segregation within a
joint area. That is the only solution.
No sir, conservatives we are not. We are revolutionaries in the
true sense of the word: we seek to remodel the world in a new
image, to cast down the lies and racial treason of the old order,
and to return to the eternal laws of race as our guiding light.
Only with the full understanding of race, acceptance of racial
differences and geographic separation, can we avoid racial
conflict.
Yes, you heard me correctly: we seek a world without racial
conflict, where each race is free to achieve whatever it may,
within its own space, without interference from outside.
This goal is really this ironic, to the extreme that the solution
to the racial problem which we seek, is in fact the only manner
in which the racial harmony which the liberals so desperately
desire, can be achieved.
We know and understand this eternal truth. Birds of a feather
flock together, as should you and I.
We have our goal clearly laid out in front of us. We are resolute
in our intention to see the flowering garden of our glorious race
instead of the Jew-ridden, race-mixed weed patch, and we work
unceasingly for our goal.
Why don't you join with us today? Join the National Alliance and
become a part of our racial rebirth.
>
>> We have many laws that make things better for people.
>> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
>> hours.
>
> And how does that make it better for me? Suppose I want to
>work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
>worth the higher rate? How is forbidding me to make a trade
>a benefit?
People are exploited in capitalism.
>
>> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
>
> No there aren't.
>
>> 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.
>
> Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
>capitalism.
>
>> Capitalism is bad for people.
>
> And Nazism is good?
Leon Degrelle
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
>
> Note that you posted this all before as "Polaris" and "Neptune3"
>and I refuted it before. Yet you still post it, verbatim. Why?
The "refute" part is only in your mind.
>I've clearly shown why it's rubbish so why keep posting it?
>Note: everything I wrote after "capitalism and communism are both
>bad" is a cut and paste of arguments that you didn't refute last time.
I'm saving this for pastes too.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> Under capitalism there is freedom of contract and the rule of law,
>otherwise
>they would be no secure ownership of property that capitalism needs to
>function. To insist that this is even vaguely similiar to Nazism or
>Stalinism
>is rediculous.
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
strabo
> Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
>
You need to learn the basics.
Capitalism is a method and means of monetary distribution and
transaction, not a social or political convention. Both Stalin and
Hitler used capitalism to their advantage. Capitalism is without moral
value or character and is adaptable by various forms of government.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
>
> > Under capitalism there is freedom of contract and the rule of law,
> > otherwisethey would be no secure ownership of property that capitalism needs to
> > function. To insist that this is even vaguely similiar to Nazism or Stalinism is rediculous.
>
> Capitalism is the terrorism of the market.
What people sell you plane rides that end in the World Trade Centre?
> It's based on greed, social darwinism and cruelty to animals.
No it's based on freedom, security of contract and looking after the
only animals
that count, us. It was capitalism that put an end to the survival of
the fittest by
allowing far more people to survive.
Michael Price
> On 7 Jan 2007 03:05:05 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Under capitalism there is freedom of contract and the rule of law,
> >otherwise they would be no secure ownership of property that capitalism needs to
> >function. To insist that this is even vaguely similiar to Nazism or
> >Stalinism
> >is rediculous.
>
> Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
>
Which is utterly irrevelent to my post.
Michael Price
> On 6 Jan 2007 20:51:53 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Topaz wrote:
> ><nothing that related to the post he replied to>
> >
> > Coward.
>
> Here is the post you refer to:
>
> >I won't call Hitler and Stalin communists. Hitler wasn't a true
> >socialist either. I would rather call them "terrorists".
Keep your attributions straight moron.
>
> My post proved that the NS were not "terrorists" and that they were
> true socialists in the good way.
No it merely repeated the usual lies. The Nazi were worse than
terrorists,
killing was their aim not their method.
Michael Price
> uri wrote:
> > Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
> >
>
> You need to learn the basics.
>
> Capitalism is a method and means of monetary distribution and
> transaction, not a social or political convention. Both Stalin and
> Hitler used capitalism to their advantage.
When? When did they allow let alone use the private ownership of
capital operating under the rule of law? That is exactly what they
didn't
use!
> Capitalism is without moral
> value or character and is adaptable by various forms of government.
>
You don't have a clue what capitalism is.
uri
strabo wrote:
> uri wrote:
> > Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
> >
>
> You need to learn the basics.
>
> Capitalism is a method and means of monetary distribution and
> transaction, not a social or political convention. Both Stalin and
> Hitler used capitalism to their advantage. Capitalism is without moral
> value or character and is adaptable by various forms of government.
>
That's exactly the problem. Capitalism puts very little emphasis on
social equality or morality. It puts money above everything else. It
doesn't care about letting poor people die.
In the past tyrannical governments like the British and Russian empires
used capitalism for their own advantage.
uri
> > Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
> You need to learn the basics.
> Capitalism is a method and means of monetary distribution and
> transaction, not a social or political convention. Both Stalin and
> Hitler used capitalism to their advantage. Capitalism is without moral
> value or character and is adaptable by various forms of government.
That's exactly the problem. Capitalism puts very little emphasis on
social equality or morality. It puts money and mechanistic interactions
uri
> > Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
> You need to learn the basics.
> Capitalism is a method and means of monetary distribution and
> transaction, not a social or political convention. Both Stalin and
> Hitler used capitalism to their advantage. Capitalism is without moral
> value or character and is adaptable by various forms of government.
That's exactly the problem. Capitalism puts very little emphasis on
social equality or morality. It puts money and mechanistic
relationships above everything else. It doesn't care about letting poor
people die.
In the past tyrannical and expansionist empires like the British and
Topaz
wrote:
>Topaz wrote:
Here is a quote from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
Topaz
We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.
Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.
The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.
Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.
No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.
It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.
We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.
Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.
If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"
That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.
As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.
At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.
Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.
The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.
Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.
In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."
Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"
Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platorm I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where there
were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised by
what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.
Topaz
NUREMBERG
SPEECH OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1936
...If I had wished I could have substituted officials for employers,
but nature and reality select best. We do not wish bureaucratic
economics as in Russia, nor do we wish to establish economic democracy
here.
Yet that does not mean either that we wish to let things drift as they
please. Our fundamental economic principles are, first, to unite all
the forces existing, and secondly, to educate our people better in
their use.
Topaz
"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.
Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have
given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen
young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have
told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real
reason for the attacks.
We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government
spokesmen repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do
with America's support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by
the President to the U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked
us because they hate our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks
before Congress
"Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"
"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
freedoms."
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
that even this intellectually challenged President cannot really
believe it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would
give up their families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge
ball of fire simply because they hate our democracy! Right on Mr.
President! Next week, will we will hear about Islamic kamikazes
crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest enduring democracy on earth.
Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten
years. We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge
costs could well bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers
of American lives. Before we can make such a crucial decision, we
deserve to have the whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.
Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the
Big Lie put out by the American mass media.
Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a
calculated lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our
support for Israel.
You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad
public relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they
want is for the American people to realize that our unconditional
support of Israel has directly led to this disaster.
If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might
begin to ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is
our support of Israel really worth it?"
To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up
the Big Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly
people who hated freedom and democracy!
The real reason for the attack
Even the date the terrorists chose for this attack shows their true
motivation.
The attack occurred on September 11. That is the anniversary of the
League of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in
1922. The date represents the first physical step toward the
implementation of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of
Israel.
Why has the mass media kept this important fact from the American
people?
Frankly, this fact has been suppressed because the American media are
thoroughly dominated by Jews. Many Americans suspect that Jews have
disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is
more than most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their
enormous media power, just go to my web page, www.davidduke.com and
read the "Who Runs the Media?" chapter from my book, My Awakening.
(Located at http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)
Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli
Lobby afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every
American to think that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the
service of a foreign nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish
Lobby is a proven fact, and nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this
all-powerful lobby. Even one of the most powerful U.S. Senators in
American history, William Fulbright, bluntly said on CBS's Face the
Nation, that, "Israel controls the U.S.
Senate."
Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd
reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon
Peres warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed
American requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could
cause America to turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon
responded to Peres:
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will
do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry
about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
America, and the Americans know it." (2)
The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real
reasons behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama
Bin Laden. He and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has
put support for Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating
America. Bin Laden and countless millions in the Muslim world regard
the attacks on Lebanon, on Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and
on Sudan as a direct result of Israel's control over America.
They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the
ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of
political enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive
wars launched by Israeli's against their Arab neighbors; that all
these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional
American aid. They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children,
as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct
result of Jewish control of America.
The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
multimedia, might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign
policy, but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all
understand it; and they hate us for it.
In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the
terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin
Laden's real motivations.
I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove
the media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John
Miller of ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he
seeks to attack America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web
sites. Here are excerpts of bin Laden's own words.
"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered
and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their
houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed.
"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious
government that looks out for their interests and does not attack
other people's lands, or other people's honor. And my word to American
journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their
government has done that forced us to defend ourselves."
"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of
soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their
lives and the lives of their children, to find a patriotic government
that will look after their interests and not the interests of the
Jews."
I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal
government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We
believe that this administration represents Israel inside America.
Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the
upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans
for the world.
In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So,
now we know Laden's true motivation. He attacked us not because he
"hates democracy", but because he thinks Israel controls and uses
America to attack his people."
David Duke
(1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16
(2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your support makes our work possible. We need your help now more than
ever.
Please help our efforts with an online donation today.
Make a donation today by clicking here:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml
IMPORTANT ONLINE LINKS
Learn more about EURO at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml
How to join EURO online: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
How to download an application and mail it in:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
Where to find local EURO Chapters:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero_contacts.shtml
Where to read our press releases:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/
Watch news clips and interviews:
http://www.davidduke.com/video/index.html
Where to buy books, tapes or stickers: www.davidduke.net
Read sample chapters online from David Duke's book "My Awakening":
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/toc.html
Topaz
wrote:
It proved your post a sham. Here it is again.
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
Topaz
"We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect
free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible
economic order." - Adolf Hitler
Here are some quotes from Hitler's speech on January 27, 1932, at
Dusseldorf:
IF TODAY the National Socialist Movement is regarded amongst
widespread circles in Germany as being hostile to our business life, I
believe the reason for this view is to be found in the fact that we
adopted towards the events which determined the development leading to
our present position an attitude which differed from that of all the
other organizations which are of any importance in our public life.
Even now our outlook differs in many points from that of our
opponents....
There are indeed especially two other closely related factors which
we can time and again trace in periods of national decline: the one is
that for the conception of the value of personality there is
substituted a levelling idea of the supremacy of mere numbers -
democracy - and the other is the negation of the value of a people,
the denial of any difference in the inborn capacity, the achievement,
etc., of individual peoples. Thus both factors condition one another
or at least influence each other in the course of their development.
Internationalism and democracy are inseparable conceptions. It is but
logical that democracy, which within a people denies the special value
of the individual and puts in its place a value which represents the
sum of all individualities - a purely numerical value - should proceed
in precisely the same way in the life of peoples and should in that
sphere result in internationalism. Broadly it is maintained: peoples
have no inborn values, but, at the most, there can be admitted perhaps
temporary differences in education. Between Negroes, Aryans,
Mongolians, and Redskins there is no essential difference in value...
Let no one say that the picture produced as a first impression of
human civilization is the impression of its achievement as a whole.
This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all
its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the
achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its
greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of
individual God-favored geniuses, in its average accomplishment the
achievement of men of average capacity, and in its sum doubtless the
result of the use of human labor-force in order to turn to account the
creations of genius and of talent. So it is only natural that when the
capable intelligences of a nation, which are always in a minority, are
regarded only as of the same value as all the rest, then genius,
capacity, the value of personality are slowly subjected to the
majority and this process is then falsely named the rule of the
people. For this is not rule of the people, but in reality the rule of
stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-heartedness, of cowardice, of
weakness, and of inadequacy....
I may cite an example: you maintain, gentlemen, that German business
life must be constructed on a basis of private property. Now such a
conception as that of private property you can defend only if in some
way or another it appears to have a logical foundation. This
conception must deduce its ethical justification from an insight into
the necessity which Nature dictates. It cannot simply be upheld by
saying: 'It has always been so and therefore it must continue to be
so.' For in periods of great upheavals within States, of movements of
peoples and changes in thought, institutions and systems cannot remain
untouched because they have previously been preserved without change.
It is the characteristic feature of all really great revolutionary
epochs in the history of mankind that they pay astonishingly little
regard for forms which are hallowed only by age or which are
apparently only so consecrated. It is thus necessary to give such
foundations to traditional forms which are to be preserved that they
can be regarded as absolutely essential, as logical and right. And
then I am bound to say that private property can be morally and
ethically justified only if I admit that men's achievements are
different. Only on that basis can I assert: since men's achievements
are different, the results of those achievements are also different.
But if the results of those achievements are different, then it is
reasonable to leave to men the administration of those results to a
corresponding degree. It would not be logical to entrust the
administration of the result of an achievement which was bound up with
a personality either to the next best but less capable person or to a
community which, through the mere fact that it had not performed the
achievement, has proved that it is not capable of administering the
result of that achievement. Thus it must be admitted that in the
economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal
value or of equal importance. And once this is admitted it is madness
to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in
value, but that is not true in the political sphere. IT IS ABSURD TO
BUILD UP ECONOMIC LIFE ON THE CONCEPTIONS OF ACHIEVEMENT, OF THE VALUE
OF PERSONALITY, AND THEREFORE IN PRACTICE ON THE AUTHORITY OF
PERSONALITY, BUT IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE TO DENY THE AUTHORITY OF
PERSONALITY AND TO THRUST INTO ITS PLACE THE LAW OF THE GREATER NUMBER
- DEMOCRACY. In that case there must slowly arise a cleavage between
the economic and the political point of view, and to bridge that
cleavage an attempt will be made to assimilate the former to the
latter - indeed the attempt has been made, for this cleavage has not
remained bare, pale theory. The conception of the equality of values
has already, not only in politics but in economics also, been raised
to a system, and that not merely in abstract theory: no! this economic
system is alive in gigantic organizations and it has already today
inspired a State which rules over immense areas.
But I cannot regard it as possible that the life of a people should in
the long run be based upon two fundamental conceptions. If the view is
right that there are differences in human achievement, then it must
also be true that the value of men in respect of the production of
certain achievements is different It is then absurd to allow this
principle to hold good only In one sphere - the sphere of economic
life and its leadership - and to refuse to acknowledge its validity in
the sphere of the whole life-struggle of a people - the sphere of
politics. Rather the logical course is that if I recognize without
qualification in the economic sphere the fact of special achievements
as forming the condition of all higher culture, then in the same way I
should recognize special achievement in the sphere of politics, and
that means that I am bound to put in the forefront the authority of
personality. If, on the contrary, it is asserted - and that, too, by
those engaged in business - that in the political sphere special
capacities are not necessary but that here an absolute equality in
achievement reigns, then one day this same theory will be transferred
from politics and applied to economic life. But in the economic sphere
communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere. We find
ourselves today in a period in which these two fundamental principles
are at grips in all spheres which come into contact with each other;
already they are invading economics.
To take an example: Life in practical activity is founded on the
importance of personality: but now gradually it is threatened by the
supremacy of mere numbers. But in the State there is an organization -
the army - which cannot in any way be democratized without
surrendering its very existence. But if a Weltanschauung cannot be
applied to every sphere of a people's life, that fact in itself is
sufficient proof of its weakness. In other words: the army can exist
only if it maintains the absolutely undemocratic principle of
unconditional authority proceeding downwards and absolute
responsibility proceeding upwards, while, in contradistinction to
this, democracy means in practice complete dependence proceeding
downwards and authority proceeding upwards. But the result is that in
a State in which the whole political life - beginning with the parish
and ending with the Reichstag - is built up on the conception of
democracy, the army is bound gradually to become an alien body and an
alien body which must necessarily be felt to be such...
To sum up the argument: I see two diametrically opposed principles:
the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical
effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the
authority of personality which I would call the principle of
achievement, because whatever man in the past has achieved - all human
civilizations - is conceivable only if the supremacy of this principle
is admitted.
Topaz
wrote:
> And who said it was? The whole point of libertarianism is that
>the good is best chosen freely by the individual, not that freedom
>itself is the only or the most good thing.
>
>> Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is
>> not freedom, but one cannot live without it.
>
> And how can someone be physically secure without freedom?
Jobless and homeless people have plenty of freedom, but they are not
secure.
>
> And how does that mean that freedom is less worthwhile?
>
>
> While people are born into a family they can leave it when they come
>of
>age. As for those that enter into familial relations afterwards (e.g.
>marriage
>or adoption) it is hardly lack of freedom that prevents their leaving,
>but
>the contracts they freely signed. Unless you mean the freedom to
>break contracts, which libertarians don't argue for.
>
> Well you're half right, the security and prosperity of it's people
>and their
>families is not a principle issue of government.
Then that government should be abolished and replaced but one that
does that.
> Security is inherently individual, what is national security but the
>knowledge that you're going to be made insecure by the same people
>tommorrow as today? As for a "healthy culture" any culture that
>hands government power over it to ensure it's "health" is sick indeed.
>When has the efforts of government to make culture "healthy" produced
>anything but the glorification of violance and obedience.
"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
>
> Well isn't that what the government thinks it can do?
>
> By that argument I shouldn't have to live in a culture that is
>brutalised
>by the Bible. To argue that you have the right to live in a culture
>that
>doesn't produce anything that offends you is rediculous. By that
>argument everyone has veto power on the expression of everyone
>else's opinion.
We should allow the "gay parades". Therefore we shouldn't have
libertarianism.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
" By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking
criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the
twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth
century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East
India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for
Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite
literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors
proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth
century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal
activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton
officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on
Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in
Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of
pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the
imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to
aggressively close down the opium dens.
Lin Tse-hsü
The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly
moral official named Lin Tse-hsü. Deeply concerned about the opium
menace, he maneuverd himself into being appointed Imperial
Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to cut off the opium
trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and cracking down
on British trade in the drug.
He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely
invulnerable to bribery and corruption, he had taken action against
Chinese merchants and Western traders and shut down all the traffic in
opium. He destroyed all the existing stores of opium and, victorious
in his war against opium, he composed a letter to Queen Victoria of
England requesting that the British cease all opium trade. His letter
included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade and
consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it
should not export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to
Lin, should only be in beneficial objects…"
>
> Actually there is considerable evidence that it would. For example
>the
>behaviour of people in disasters is overwhelmingly cooperative and
>helpful despite the lack of
"In pictures from New Orleans we see White rescuers saving Blacks from
the flood. Meanwhile, mobs of Blacks targeted and preyed upon the New
Orleans White population with racial hatred, rape, robbery, and
murder. They even shot at Whites who risked their own lives to save
them.
Tell me that we European Americans should not be outraged about this!
What if the situation were reversed and White mobs hurled racial abuse
at Blacks and raped and murdered them? Would there not be
international headlines and condemnation about it? Would not every
White politician from the President of the United States on down speak
out against it?
Instead, while our people are being raped, robbed, and murdered by
hate-crazed African Americans, there is a deafening silence, and even
worse, the media is full of stories of how "White racism" caused the
problems.
White people, this is your wake up call!"
David Duke
>
>> And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative
>> consequences of some of their free choices?
>
> Well yes.
>
>
> What evidence is there that limiting either is "decent"? What is
>"decent" about making someone's life worse?
>
>> People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are
>> taxed.
>
> "Allowed to become"? That's generous. I mean they create benefits
>for you and you only steal most of it.
>
>> They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to
>> starve.
>
> Nor would they be under libertarianism, you could feed them if you
>want.
By Seun Osewa
Until a few days ago, I considered myself a libertarian, but then
someone asked me a question "without social security, who's going to
care for very old people who have no money and no family?"
I couldn't find a good answer to that question. Yes, they should have
saved while they were working. But now that they are old and too weak
to work to pay for the high level of attention they need, should we
just let them die? The answer was "no". Yet a libertarian economy the
only hope they have is charity. One could plausible argue that charity
is unreliable, but that's not my greatest concern.
My concern is what happens to people who engage in a lot of charity vs
people who are amoral and just don't care about others. Capitalism
concentrates power in the hands of the amoral.
Imagine two people who are very similar to each other and enter a free
market the same day. One is amoral and only cares about wealth and
himself while the other one likes to help others who are unable to
help themselves and are never able repay him back. Over several years,
the amoral one will most likely be much richer than his friend. He'll
explore morally questionable opportunities that the other won't be
able to explore and this will add up over time.
Fraud and theft are not supposed to be in a free market, so I'm not
talking about crime lords. I'm talking about people who are not
interested in helping others unless they have something to gain from
it. People who won't give unless it's a PR opportunity. People who
won't assist economically useless, bedridden old people in their last
days on earth. People who will always free-ride when given the
opportunity. These people will become richer and pass the riches to
heirs who have been trained in their ways.
So over several generations, in a tax free society, wealth will be
concentrated in the hands of selfish, amoral people. The good
samaritans will be generally poorer because:
1) They give away their wealth: money, time, attention, services
in charity.
2) They can't explore certain opportunities (not theft, not
fraud) that they think are unfair to others.
It seems to me that in order to 'help the helpless' in a society while
also preventing wealth from being concentrated in the hands of people
who don't care (vs. those who are charitable), there has to be a tax
that takes money from everyone equally and gives it to those who would
die because they are not able to offer services to others who have
wealth. Like those old people with no relatives or savings...
(orphans) , and the disabled.
Or what do you think? If people are unable to obtain food, do we just
let them die or use a system that makes poorer those who can't bear to
see them die?
>This post is really a collection of strawmen, and not even original
>ones.
>
>
> Crueler than Auschwitz?
Auschwitz: Myths and facts
by Mark Weber
Nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime
concentration camp where many prisoners-most of them Jewish-were
reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is
widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The
camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the
facts.
Scholars challenge Holocaust story
Astonishing as it may seem, more and more historians and engineers
have been challenging the widely accepted Auschwitz story. These
"revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of
Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly
of typhus and other diseases. But the compelling evidence they present
shows that Auschwitz was not an extermination center and that the
story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
The Auschwitz camps
The Auschwitz camp complex was set up in 1940 in what is now
south-central Poland. Large numbers of Jews were deported there
between 1942 and mid-1944.
The main camp was known as Auschwitz I. Birkenau, or Auschwitz II, was
supposedly the main extermination center, and Monowitz, or Auschwitz
III, was a large industrial center where gasoline was produced from
coal. In addition there were dozens of smaller satellite camps devoted
to the war economy.
Four million victims?
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans
exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was
invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It
often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for
example. (note 1)
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the
extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian
Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the
familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the
Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem
Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one
million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither
institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were
any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (note
2) One prominent Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger, has estimated
that perhaps 700,000 or so Jews perished at Auschwitz. More recently,
Holocaust historian Jean-Claude Pressac has estimated that about
800,000 persons-of whom 630,000 were Jewish-perished at Auschwitz.
While even such lower figures are incorrect, they show how the
Auschwitz story has changed drastically over the years. (note 3)
Bizarre tales
At one time it was seriously claimed that Jews were systematically
electrocuted at Auschwitz. American newspapers, citing a Soviet
eyewitness report from liberated Auschwitz, told readers in February
1945 that the methodical Germans had killed Jews there using an
"electric conveyor belt on which hundreds of persons could be
electrocuted simultaneously [and] then moved on into furnaces. They
were burned almost instantly, producing fertilizer for nearby cabbage
fields." (note 4)
And at the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson
charged that the Germans used a "newly invented" device to
instantaneously "vaporize" 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz "in such a way
that there was no trace left of them." (note 5) No reputable historian
now accepts either of these fanciful tales.
The Höss 'confession'
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz
commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946, which was submitted by the
U.S. prosecution at the main Nuremberg trial. (note 6)
Although it is still widely cited as solid proof for the Auschwitz
extermination story, it is actually a false statement that was
obtained by torture.
Many years after the war, British military intelligence sergeant
Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers
tortured the former commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss
himself privately explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I
signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could
just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are
certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is
true or not." (note 7)
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story
now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss
"affidavit" are simply not true. For one thing, no serious scholar now
claims that anything like two and a half or three million people
perished in Auschwitz.
The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being
exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps:
Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a
total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer
mentioned in Holocaust literature. Moreover, the story these days by
those who believe in the Holocaust legend is that gassings of Jews did
not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.
No documentary evidence
Many thousands of secret German documents dealing with Auschwitz were
confiscated after the war by the Allies. Not a single one refers to a
policy or program of extermination. In fact, the extermination story
cannot be reconciled with the documentary evidence.
Many Jewish inmates unable to work
For example, it is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were
unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young,
sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who
could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive.
But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the
Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not
killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4,
1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS
Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of
25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and
that all of the remaining Jewish inmates-some 21,500, or about 86
percent-were unable to work. (note 8)
This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on
"security measures in Auschwitz" by Oswald Pohl, head of the SS
concentration camp system, to SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported
that there was a total of 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz camp
complex, of whom 18,000 were hospitalized or disabled. In the
Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau), supposedly the main extermination
center, there were 36,000 inmates, mostly female, of whom
"approximately 15,000 are unable to work." (note 9)
These two documents simply cannot be reconciled with the Auschwitz
extermination story.
The evidence shows that Auschwitz-Birkenau was established primarily
as a camp for Jews who were not able to work, including the sick and
elderly, as well as for those who were temporarily awaiting assignment
to other camps. That's the considered view of Dr. Arthur Butz of
Northwestern University, who also says that this was the reason for
the unusually high death rate there. (note 10)
Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who is Jewish,
acknowledges in a recent book about the "final solution" that more
Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other "natural"
causes than were executed. (note 11)
Anne Frank
Perhaps the best known Auschwitz inmate was Anne Frank, who is known
around the world for her famous diary. But few people know that
thousands of Jews, including Anne and her father, Otto Frank,
"survived" Auschwitz.
The 15-year-old girl and her father were deported from the Netherlands
to Auschwitz in September 1944. Several weeks later, in the face of
the advancing Soviet army, Anne was evacuated along with many other
Jews to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in March
1945.
Her father came down with typhus in Auschwitz and was sent to the camp
hospital to recover. He was one of thousands of sick and feeble Jews
who were left behind when the Germans abandoned the camp in January
1945, shortly before it was overrun by the Soviets. He died in
Switzerland in 1980.
If the German policy had been to kill Anne Frank and her father, they
would not have survived Auschwitz. Their fate, tragic though it was,
cannot be reconciled with the extermination story.
Allied propaganda
The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay
statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any
evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because
rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread.
Allied planes dropped large numbers of LEAFLETS , written in Polish
and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that
people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story,
which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort,
was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (note 12)
Survivor testimony
Former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of
extermination at Auschwitz.
An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp
experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was
interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations
with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy
woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at
Auschwitz.
Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go
into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The
terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then,
instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.
Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the
death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and
quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass
killings, gassings, or of any extermination program. (note 13)
A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from
Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and
cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard
and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned
there. She heard the gassing stories only later. (note 14)
Inmates released
Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and
returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top
secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have
released inmates who "knew" what was happening in the camp. (note 15)
Himmler orders death rate reduced
In response to the deaths of many inmates due to disease, especially
typhus, the German authorities responsible for the camps ordered firm
counter-measures.
The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated
Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It
sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and
ordered that "camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to
significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps."
Furthermore, it ordered:
The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the
nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the
administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp
commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working
conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as
possible.
Finally, the directive stressed that "the Reichsfhrer SS [Heinrich
Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
(note 16)
German camp regulations
Official German camp regulations make clear that Auschwitz was not an
extermination center. They ordered: (note 17)
New arrivals in the camp are to be given a thorough medical
examination, and if there is any doubt [about their health], they must
be sent to quarantine for observation.
Prisoners who report sick must be examined that same day by the camp
physician. If necessary, the physician must transfer the prisoners to
a hospital for professional treatment.
The camp physician must regularly inspect the kitchen regarding the
preparation of the food and the quality of the food supply. Any
deficiencies that may arise must be reported to the camp commandant.
Special care should be given in the treatment of accidents, in order
not to impair the full productivity of the prisoners.
Prisoners who are to be released or transfered must first be brought
before the camp physician for medical examination.
Telltale aerial photos
Detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau
on several random days in 1944 (during the height of the alleged
extermination period there) were made public by the CIA in 1979. These
photos show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys
or masses of Jews awaiting death, things that have been repeatedly
alleged, and all of which would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz
had been the extermination center it is said to have been. (note 18)
Absurd cremation claims
Cremation specialists have confirmed that thousands of corpses could
not possibly have been cremated every day throughout the spring and
summer of 1944 at Auschwitz, as commonly alleged.
For example, Mr. Ivan Lagace, manager of a large crematory in Calgary,
Canada, testified in court in April 1988 that the Auschwitz cremation
story is technically impossible. The allegation that 10,000 or even
20,000 corpses were burned every day at Auschwitz in the summer of
1944 in crematories and open pits is simply "preposterous" and "beyond
the realm of reality," he declared under oath. (note 19)
Gassing expert refutes extermination story
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A.
Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and
concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically
impossible.
Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of
gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals.
For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state
penitentiary.
In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the
"gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which
are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn
testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter
described every aspect of his investigation.
He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing
facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among
other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were
not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also
killing German camp personnel. (note 20)
Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by
the Dupont Corporation, likewise testified in a 1985 court case that
the Auschwitz gassing story is technically impossible. Based on a
careful on-site examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: "I
have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully
killed with Zyklon B [hydrocyanic acid gas] in this manner. I consider
it absolutely impossible." (note 21)
www.ihr.org
> Crueler than Tuskeegee? Crueler than the
>British concentration camps? The only real difference in how the
>less fortunate are treated under libertarianism is that you are allowed
>to help them, they are not simply cut off from any assistence.
>
>
> The freely and individually chosen. You do not get to chose for
>other
>people.
>
>> Paradoxically,
>> people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
>
> And they have that right, they do not have the right to limit my
>freedoms
>merely because they don't want them for themselves.
We should outlaw heroin and prostitution and other bad things.
>
> No it could be achieved under anarchy.
>
>> which rather puts the lie to libertarians' claim
>> that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what's
>> best for other people impose their values on the rest of us.
>
> How so? It's true isn't it?
Libertarians are trying to impose their values on those who prefer to
live in a great nation.
>
>> Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one
>> true political philosophy and all others are false.
>
> And what is wrong with that? I don't make you live according to my
>preferences.
>
>> It entails
>> imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and
>> minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of
>> except by leaving.
>
> No, it imposes a certain class of societies.
>
>> And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of
>> bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in
>> favor of that minted by private banks.
>
> And what's "bizarre" about that? Government monopoly of the money
>has done nothing but destroy the capacity of "legal tender" to store
>value, act as a medium of exchange and fulfil all the functions of
>money.
>Private providers created money for years without much problems.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
>
> Actually no, that's what happened when the State gave special legal
>powers to certain banks, which then abused them. The crisis that
>plagued financial systems were far LESS common in free banking.
>
>
We should outlaw heroin, prostitution, "gay parades", and other bad
things.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Memo from feds to Topaz: Kevin is in jail in Charlottesville where he
is now explaining his white supremacist, Nazi views to Tyrone, Leroy,
and Fernando. You're next.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> But making everything look good, regardless of whether people care
>about
>whether it looks good enough to pay for it to look good, decreases
>prosperity.
We should come to some happy medium but not have libertarianism
which would allow mud huts.
>
>> Whites are happier among their own kind.
>
> All of mankind is my kind. Even assuming that what you say is true,
>how does that justify forcibly stealing property from people of other
>races?
We should not steal like the Jews. We should pay them for their
houses.
>If you want to live in an all-white paradise, by all means by some land
>and
>gather there with your fellow inbred Nazi freaks.
"Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE
problem.
Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world
pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."
"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan,
but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by
bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote
with them."
"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY
white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e.,
intermarry, with all those non-whites."
"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem
would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were
brought
into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"
"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a
RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK
problem?"
"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and
what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"
"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of
genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable
conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/
>
> But they clearly don't want to live in an all-white neighbourhood,
>let
>alone nation. Or at least they don't want to pay the costs of
>excluding
>non-whites.
Here is a quote from "The Zionist Factor" by Ivor Benson:
"Money had become progressively the measure of all things, with a
ruling elite drawn less and less from the land and more and more from
the factory and counting house. The nations had, in fact, become
plutocracies, capable of maintaing themselves in power with a public
opinion not sought and consulted as before but -created- as required
by newspapers, patronage and other "rewards in the business world."
Such a conversion of money into public opinion and support
was accomplished in Britain by Rhodes and Milner and their "gold bug"
partners, with a total disregard for all moral considerations. Money
had shown what money could do."
> No, it had murder on a truly massive scale and a complete absence of
>the rule of law. Judgements were made on what benefitted the State
>not the legal facts of the case.
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents 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 absence
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 Germans 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 pajamas 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 from 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 British 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 received 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 sentenced 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
throughout 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 throughout
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 prominent 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.
Montgomery 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."
>>
>> Because I don't want the deer to go extinct.
>>
> So your preferences are the only important thing? Ahh... the
>selflessness
>of the collectivist.
We should not let the deer go extinct.
> And yet it's government that caused most of the clearing of the
>Amazon,
>the biggest cause of destruction of species ever, as well as countless
>other
>cases. Where can you point to libertarianism actually destroying
>species?
A good government would not have allowed the Amazon problem.
>
> Not an answer, you claimed Hitler "made Germany great" (and then
>snipped the claim while retaining the reply to it so as to destroy
>context).
>So why was it destroyed under his watch if it was so "great"?
There was a war. The corrupt Jewish controlled countries won.
>
> Even assuming that your summary is correct (and I'm sure it isn't)
>what
>you detail is a largely unsuccessful attempt to get people to
>voluntarily
>refrain from trade with Germany by Jews. That is not a reason to go to
>war.
>To respond to a boycott by a minority of a country with bombing of
>another
>country is moronic. If Hitler was not an idiot why try to justify
>launching a
>war (and staying in the war when given the option to get out of it) by
>reference
>to a trade boycott? If Germany can't survive not trading with Jews
>then it
>should have been nicer to them, especially since apparently they could
>survive not trading with it.
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and
reasonably well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in
bringing on the Second World War…
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain -- a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany…
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'…
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe…
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world…
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt…
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so…
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw…
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the
White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]…
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House…
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities…
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]…
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]…
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good -- that he broke the law for lofty
principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was
noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to
name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard.
And the argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It
implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best
interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a
kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provincial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a self righteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
* * * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
> And how is that a justification? In any case it's not true, people
>could
>publish things critical of the government in America or England but not
>Germany.
No. During the war political dissidents were locked up in America
and England. They killed William Joyce in England.
>
> And they were in prison for using violence against the State they
>claimed to love!
>
>
> Tu quoque is not a valid argument.
>
>
> No it isn't. In any case that doesn't justify anything.
>
>> 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.
>>
> Again, how is that a justification?
>
> But the Jews don't control the media, customers do. If you know
>anything
>you'd know that.
Jews do
>>
>> "Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
>> they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
>> inferior work and product.
>
> Well no, they believe they'll sue for breach of contract.
>
>> 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?
>
> It's what some of the public demands, but that doesn't make it right.
>If they demanded that all the Jews be burnt would that make it right?
>Oh, yeah, forgot who I was talking to.
>> Who would pave the roads in your system?
>>
> For the fifth fucking time moron, whoever owns them!!!!
Roads should be public property. This is positive freedom.
>> The children of poor people who prove intelligent and productive
>> should be aided to become what they want to be in life.
>
> Why? If they're so smart why do they need our help? If there's so
>productive
>why can't they loan the money for education and pay it back later? And
>why
>should the aid, if such is needed, come from robbing me?
It's just a good thing.
>
> You call it a gutter philosophy but you're the one who puts what he
>likes
>ahead of what everyone else does and uses force to get it done. That's
>the gutter.
You want to force libertarianism on everyone.
> Then why did he steal it?<snip>
>>
>> You should pay your fair share for street lights to light up the town
>> at night. If you don't like it we should force the taxes from you
>> anyway.
>
> Non sequitur.
>>
> And you think they did? If you don't know any of them why claim that
>they benefitted.
Just obvious
>
> But you wouldn't. And you don't think I would either, so given
>neither
>of us can be trusted controlling the police what makes you think anyone
>can?
I would make things right and good.
>
>> "Might FOR Right" as King Arthur says.
>>
> And didn't that end well.
> No it was perfectly adequate and that's why you snipped it.
>> The land belongs to all the citizens.
>
> Prove it.
Just obvious
>
>> There is no one to buy it from.
>
> Which is why it was acquired by mixing labour with it.
Agreed
> If one man
>can't
>acquire the rights to it by purchase how can many men acquire the
>rights
>to it? And if they can then why doesn't it belong to people of all
>nations?
A nation can own the land. Some things like the Pacific Ocean should
be international.
>
>> Individuals should only own a reasonable amount of land around their
>> house or business.
>
> Prove it.
Land was there before there was people. People can't buy the land
from anyone or own it. They can own a house and a reasonable amount of
land around it.
>
> How do you know if you don't know how much is charged.
The nuisance of having to stop at a toll booth.
>
>> And if they haul libertarians off who disagree good ridance.
>>
> Yeah that's your answer to everything.
>> The Fuehrer redisributed some wealth if that is what you are griping
>> about.
>
> And he did so by force. How is this not theft?
Capialism is a false concept. We should have free enterprise but also
do things to make things good for people.
>
>> But the rich were still rich. He didn't believe in equality.
>>
> Indeed, he stole from the poor as well.
We should all pay our fair share for the good things we should have
and do.
>
> So in other words I have to cite good aryans to prove my point?
>
> How is that good? Anyone worthy of a business loan is going to
>get returns on the money. Why should that living be subsidised at
>the expense of those who save and make it possible? Why should
>I by forced to accept a zero interest rate on deposits when such
>deposits make wealth creation possible? You really know less economics
>than a rock.
New money should be created for business loans because business
created more wealth.
We need to scrap the debt-money system. This site explains it for
those who don't know:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
We need a money supply that is not owed to 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.
> And who would give out such loans if not bribable parasites?
A good state, which is not for its own profit, but exists to make
things good for people.
Michael Price
uri wrote:
> strabo wrote:
>
> > > Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
> > You need to learn the basics.
> > Capitalism is a method and means of monetary distribution and
> > transaction, not a social or political convention. Both Stalin and
> > Hitler used capitalism to their advantage. Capitalism is without moral
> > value or character and is adaptable by various forms of government.
>
> That's exactly the problem. Capitalism puts very little emphasis on
> social equality or morality.
No, people do that. That's the point, captialism doesn't mandate
any values, it lets you choose your own AND NOBODY ELSE'S.
> It puts money and mechanistic
> relationships above everything else. It doesn't care about letting poor
> people die.
>
And yet poor people die from lack of capitalism not too much of it.
> In the past tyrannical and expansionist empires like the British and
> Russian empires
> used capitalism for their own advantage.
No they were mercantilist, not capitalist. Learn the difference.
Michael Price
Topaz wrote:
> "We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect
> free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible
> economic order." - Adolf Hitler
And yet his economic program was deeply socialist and often relied on
outright expropriation.
<snip>
Michael Price
> I can cut and paste, aren't I cleaver?
Michael Price
> >> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> >> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
> >
> >What does that mean exactly?
>
> Capitalism is supply and demand. It's against having any laws or
> programs that might favor people over material.
And what does that mean exactly? Capitalism is based on favouring
customers, who are all human beings AFAIK. Material is not "favoured"
and cannot be.
>
> > Capitalism doesn't put a value on
> >anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
> >information on what people value. It has no values of it's own,
>
> Exactly, it has no values.
>
And that's bad how exactly? People should have values not systems.
What right does a system have to impose it's values on the people
inside it?
> >and that's good. If "the system" has values seperate from the values
> >of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
> >and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
> >otherwise) 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.
> >
> > They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
> >to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I
> >don't feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
>
> 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.
And yet the Germans needed to steal and to kill their disabled to
survive and none of the allies did. As for being "strong in arms" well
they lost didn't they?
> 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.
Whether or not the "need" is sufficently great that people would
spend their
own money.
> They have a civic sense, a social
> conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind which you
> lack."
>
I doubt that.
<snip racist rants>
>
> >
> >> And they consider it good to pay
> >> they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
> >
> > And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
> >it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
> >labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
> >are free to pursue them.
>
> 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.
And what's your point? That this is "unfair"? Prove it.
>
> 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?
That's their problem not yours.
> What more can they own or do, than if they merely had millions of dollars?
Start worthwhile but capital intensive businesses, cure aids, fund
endowments
that have helped thousands of students, the list goes on.
> 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.
And yet it never has.
>
> Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy.
And so what if they are?
> 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 what right do you have to deny the man who would take the
job at $5 an hour? How is that fair?
> 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.
And yet your ideas ended up very 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.
Why is it horrible?
> In the future we have
> should advanced economics designed to make things good for people.
>
And who decides what is good? Why der feuher of course. That didn't
work out so well.
> >
> >> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> >> will work for the least pennies per hour.
> >
> > No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
> >more valuable to their employer.
> >
> >> They say everyone must
> >> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
> >> the fewest pennies.
> >
> > And what is the alternative? That the people in Mexico and China
> >not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
> >forbidden this right?
>
> We should not go down to their level.
I repeat, what do they eat while they are forbidden this right? As
for not going
down to their level you were never that high.
> Every nation should do the
> best it can for it's people and not have capitalism.
>
And how is denying me the products of cheap labour doing the best for
me
or for any other of my compatriots?
> >
> >> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> >> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
> >
> > Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
> >system.
>
> At one time it may have allowed most people to survive.
Well it didn't. It prevented starvation.
> But with the machines we have today that is no longer the case.
>
And yet without capitalism and with machines they still starve.
> >
> >> At least the
> >> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
> >> of starvation that is fine too.
> >
> >And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
>
> Having a minimum wage for one thing is not having capitalism. Not
> that a minimum wage is exactly my plan but the point is that the USA
> and countries like that are certainly not capitalist, and people do
> starve and die in real capitalism.
>
I repeat when did this happen in real capitalism or the more nearly
capitalist countries?
<snip>
Topaz
wrote:
>
> No, people do that. That's the point, captialism doesn't mandate
>any values, it lets you choose your own AND NOBODY ELSE'S.
We should have leaders who have values and are not capitalists.
>
> And yet poor people die from lack of capitalism not too much of it.
Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. They
live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
seven days a week.
Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
as little as possible.
As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
14 hours a day and seven days a week. It's all based on "supply and
demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
people.
Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - that a
business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
average nonexecutive wage of his workers. This shares the wealth. The
business leader is forced to pay his workers more, while at the same
time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for business leaders to
start new businesses.
>
> No they were mercantilist, not capitalist. Learn the difference.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
Topaz
wrote:
>
> And what does that mean exactly? Capitalism is based on favouring
>customers, who are all human beings AFAIK. Material is not "favoured"
>and cannot be.
Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. They
live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
seven days a week.
Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
as little as possible.
As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
14 hours a day and seven days a week. It's all based on "supply and
demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
people.
Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - that a
business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
average nonexecutive wage of his workers. This shares the wealth. The
business leader is forced to pay his workers more, while at the same
time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for business leaders to
start new businesses.
>
> And that's bad how exactly? People should have values not systems.
>What right does a system have to impose it's values on the people
>inside it?
We should have leaders with values, not capitalism.
>
> And yet the Germans needed to steal and to kill their disabled to
>survive and none of the allies did.
"The German euthanasia program was nothing more than a program to
afford a merciful death to people who were hopelessly ill and in
severe pain or incurably mentally deficient to the point where they
were unaware of their surroundings. It was a mercy death afforded to
incurably ill German citizens by the state but only after a panel of
experts decided that the condition of the patient warranted such a
procedure. There was nothing cruel, inhumane, or illegal about the
program."
The actual document
signed by Hitler. Here's what Hitler ordered:
"Berlin, 1 September 1939
"Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are instructed to broaden
the
powers of physicians designated by name, who will decide whether those
who have-as far as can be humanly determined-incurable illnesses can,
after the most careful evaluation, be granted a mercy death."
/signed/ Adolf Hitler
Note that the order authorized the special panel of named doctors
to "grant" a mercy death. The order anticipated the existence of some
request by the patient or his family members. The order specified
only
"incurable illnesses" determined after careful evaluation by doctors
as
far as humanly possible.
Morghus
Hitler stopped the euthensia program when Christians complained.
>As for being "strong in arms" well
>they lost didn't they?
Compare the size of Germany to the size of the Jewish controlled
countries the USA and the USSR. And it was a close fight.
>
> Whether or not the "need" is sufficently great that people would
>spend their
>own money.
>
>
> I doubt that.
> And what's your point? That this is "unfair"? Prove it.
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.
>
> That's their problem not yours.
>
> Start worthwhile but capital intensive businesses, cure aids, fund
>endowments
>that have helped thousands of students, the list goes on.
>
> And yet it never has.
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
>>
>> Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy.
>
> And so what if they are?
>
>
> And what right do you have to deny the man who would take the
>job at $5 an hour? How is that fair?
We should scrap capitalism and have something good.
> And yet your ideas ended up very like communism.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.
On April 10, 1938 the Germans voted for or against Hitler. 99% of
them voted for Hitler. Here are some quotes from a pamphlet 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...
> Why is it horrible?
>
> And who decides what is good? Why der feuher of course. That didn't
>work out so well.
Leon Degrelle
>
> I repeat, what do they eat while they are forbidden this right? As
>for not going
>down to their level you were never that high.
Other nations should have their own socialism. Of course African
nations are not going to be as good as Aryan nations. But they
shouldn't have capitalism either.
> And how is denying me the products of cheap labour doing the best for
>me
>or for any other of my compatriots?
We should all pay our fair share for the good things. Not giving
billions to the Jews like the USA does, but the good things for our
nation.
> Well it didn't. It prevented starvation.
>
> And yet without capitalism and with machines they still starve.
> I repeat when did this happen in real capitalism or the more nearly
>capitalist countries?
The USA has welfare and food stamps and a minimum wage. It may be
very bad but it is not as bad as real capitalism.
publius2k
one is not the alternative to the other.
you can have an authoritarian socialized state, just as you can have
an authoritarian anti-social state. Most current western leaders are
in that corner. The worst of all possible worlds.
My choice is political freedom and social justice.
consensual communism.
publius2k
wrote:
>darkness wrote:
>> I won't call Hitler and Stalin communists. Hitler wasn't a true
>> socialist either. I would rather call them "terrorists".
>
> What do you mean he wasn't a true socialist? He redistributed the
>wealth by the gun and called himself socialist, good enough for me.
ALL taxes are a redistribution of wealth. It just a matter of who to
and from. the neoCON men prefer it come from workers to the
investor/employer class - witness the trillion dollar redistribution
to Halliburton et al under the pretext of a 'war on terror'.
publius2k
wrote:
>uri wrote:
Over a hundred years ago as the controllers of the USA plotted to
breakup Indian Territory so as to privatize it. Under the pretext of
giving each person a fair share of land, the real intent was to make
the land accessible to non-native landlords for adding to their
estates. Senator Dawes of the infamous Dawes Act and the related
Dawes Rolls toured the lands and...
"After his visit to the 'Five Tribes', Dawes noted of the Cherokee
"The head chief told us that there was not a family in that whole
Nation that had not a home of its own. There is not a pauper in that
Nation, and the Nation does not owe a dollar. It built its own
capitol, in which we had this examination, and built its schools and
hospitals. Yet the defect of the system was apparent. They have got as
far as they can go, because they hold their land in common. It is
Henry George's system, and under that there is no enterprise to make
your home any better than that of your neighbors. There is no
selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization. Till these people
will consent to give up their lands, and divide them among their
citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they will not
make much progress." - Redbird Smith and the Nighthawk Keetoowahs
[1983 - p. 31] by Janey B. Hendrix
No hunger, no homeless, no debt, free healthcare and education...
"Yet the defect of the system was apparent."
So, Pave paradise and put up a pay parking lot.
"There is no selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization."
strabo
> strabo wrote:
>
>>> Nazism, Stalinism and Capitalism are pretty much the same thing.
>
>> You need to learn the basics.
>
>> Capitalism is a method and means of monetary distribution and
>> transaction, not a social or political convention. Both Stalin and
>> Hitler used capitalism to their advantage. Capitalism is without moral
>> value or character and is adaptable by various forms of government.
>
> That's exactly the problem. Capitalism puts very little emphasis on
> social equality or morality. It puts money and mechanistic interactions
> above everything else.
>
civilization. Join the ranks.
"Give me the power to issue and control the money of a nation and I
care not who makes the laws."
- Anselm Rothschild
"Whoever controls the money of a nation controls that nation."
- President James A. Garfield, THE FORCES THAT GOVERN
"I oppose the admission of the Jews because they are the great money
lenders and loan contractors of the world. They do not care whether they
support a good or a bad cause. The consequence is that the nations of
the world are groaning under the heavy systems of taxation and national
debt. They have ever been the greatest enemies of freedom.
- Lord Harrington, Speech in the House of Lords, July 12, 1858
"The firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (headed by Jacob H. Schiff) floated the
large Japanese War Loans of 1904-5, this making possible the Japanese
victory over Russia..."
"Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best
interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia
and used his influence to keep Russia from the money market of the
United States."
- The Jewish Communal Register of New York City, pages 1018 - 1019.
Capitalism is a monetary and banking system which favors the players
who can control the game. The effectiveness of Capitalism and its
secretive nature is why it was quietly though officially adopted by
the US in 1913.
> It doesn't care about letting poor people die.
Capitalism doesn't make moral judgments nor care who lives or dies,
but its users do.
>
> In the past tyrannical governments like the British and Russian empires
> used capitalism for their own advantage.
>
Of course, just as buccaneers, ships, guns and other means
and methods were used to advantage.
If you want to criticize Capitalism you must criticize those who use it
and then strive to eliminate its socio-legal foundation.
You can make a big splash by revoking:
1. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
2. The 16th and 17th amendments of the US constitution.
Michael Price
> On 8 Jan 2007 20:44:44 -0800, "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > No, people do that. That's the point, captialism doesn't mandate
> >any values, it lets you choose your own AND NOBODY ELSE'S.
>
> We should have leaders who have values and are not capitalists.
>
them.
The values of the leader are inevitably going to be self-agrandisement,
that's why they became leaders.
> >
> > And yet poor people die from lack of capitalism not too much of it.
>
> Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. They
> live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
> seven days a week.
>
terrible conditions and pay are due to the overwhelming control of the
economy by the government, both now and in the past. Using the
Chinese to illustrate what's wrong with capitalism is moronic.
> Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
> there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
> as little as possible.
Well, no China has minimum wage laws.
>
> As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
> capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
> abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
> third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
> 14 hours a day and seven days a week.
Well if you can't produce enough to supply your appetites without
doing that
that's what you'll have to do, and restricting capitalism will only
mean you'll
have to do it sooner.
> It's all based on "supply and
> demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
> people.
Which means there is a big demand for what we make.
>
> Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
> with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - that a
> business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
> average nonexecutive wage of his workers.
I've explained why this is a stupid idea before. Investments needed
to
make major project need a bigger return that that to be worth making.
In any case as long as someone is increasing production by 1,000 times
the average nonexecutive wage why shouldn't he earn 100 times that
much?
If he refuses to work for 20 times the wage who wins?
> This shares the wealth. The business leader is forced to pay his workers
> more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
> business leaders to start new businesses.
No it gives incentives for them to hide their income. Any CEO of a
company
with 10,000 workers that isn't worth 100 times the average wage should
be
fired a replaced by someone who is.
Michael Price
> "Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
> they did
> it is even more important to us.
>
> Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
> why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have
> given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen
> young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have
> told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real
> reason for the attacks.
>
> We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
> who committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government
> spokesmen repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do
> with America's support of Israel."
Who has said that? Most people think that if muslims attack us our
support of Isreal probably has something to do with it.
> The official view, as expressed by
> the President to the U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked
> us because they hate our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks
> before Congress
>
> "Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"
>
> "They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
> elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
> freedoms."
>
And who is pushing this view? Why the supporters of big government,
i.e. those who believe as you do (minus the anti-semitism).
> I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
> that even this intellectually challenged President cannot really
> believe it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would
> give up their families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge
> ball of fire simply because they hate our democracy!
Well you hate democracy, wouldn't you die for your beliefs?
I'm going to snip the rest because it doesn't relate to the post it
replied to,
which you snipped in it's entirety. Coward.