Hitler Was Indeed A Socialist And Not A Far Right Conservative
Phil
or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
individual freedom and very
low taxes.
The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
Chom Noamsky
> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> individual freedom and very
> low taxes.
>
> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
What you really should do is go back and address the countless factual
and historical rebuttals that you have run away from like a little coward.
Maybe recruit your good fried Sir Osis to help you deal with them all.
Eddie Haskell
"Chom Noamsky" <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>> individual freedom and very
>> low taxes.
>>
>> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>
> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
Projection.
National Socialist Workers Party.
"In 1933, with many of the above projects still in development or early
stages of production, Adolf Hitler declared his intentions for a
state-sponsored "Volkswagen" program. Hitler required a basic vehicle
capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph).
The "People's Car" would be available to citizens of the Third Reich through
a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small
motorcycle (an average income being around 32RM a week)."
"Despite heavy lobbying in favour of one of the existing projects, Hitler
chose to sponsor an all new, state owned factory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
-Eddie Haskell
Phil
> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>
> > A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> > or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> > right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> > individual freedom and very
> > low taxes.
>
>
> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
I have never been spanked. However, common sense is often a hard sell
because, "In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain
the masters of the the world, and their dominion is suspended only for
brief periods".
>
> What you really should do is go back and address the countless factual
> and historical rebuttals that you have run away from like a little coward.
And just what are these "factual rebuttals" that supposedly show
Hitler was pro-capitalist, pro-free trade, and regarded the right of
the individual to hold private property as
sacrosanct?
.
SaPeIsMa
LOL
When Hitler makes a speech and declares himself a socialist, enemy of
capitalism, that clearly is not proof for the well programmed such as you.
Eddie Haskell
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:37adnYgoBYdkJ8zQ...@bright.net...
That makes three public bare ass spankings for Chumpsky.
-Eddie Haskell
Chom Noamsky
> "Chom Noamsky"<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
> news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
>> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>>> individual freedom and very
>>> low taxes.
>>>
>>> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>>
>> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
>
> Projection.
Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by
Sigmund Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's
books were burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's
students were connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx
if they were promoting socialist ideals?
> National Socialist Workers Party.
>
> "In 1933, with many of the above projects still in development or early
> stages of production, Adolf Hitler declared his intentions for a
> state-sponsored "Volkswagen" program. Hitler required a basic vehicle
> capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph).
> The "People's Car" would be available to citizens of the Third Reich through
> a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small
> motorcycle (an average income being around 32RM a week)."
>
> "Despite heavy lobbying in favour of one of the existing projects, Hitler
> chose to sponsor an all new, state owned factory."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
Yes, it's called state capitalism, something practiced in Canada and the
US and many other western democracies in limited amounts. State
capitalism is not socialism. And what Hitler practiced was a form of
crony capitalism.
Now, maybe you can explain why the Department of Homeland Security in
your country classifies neo-Nazi groups as "rightwing extremist":
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
An example of one of these groups the DOHS describes as rightwing
extremist is an organization known as the "National Socialist Movement":
Here is their "25 point thesis", which is almost a direct ripoff of the
Nazi's 25 point program:
http://www.nsm88.org/25points/25pointsengl.html
It's a pretty common theme, neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups in
America identify closely with Nazi values and ideals, and these groups
are described in no uncertain terms BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT as "rightwing
extremist".
Now, I'm giving you one chance that you may be able to engage in a
semi-intelligent conversation on this, and if you resort to your usual
dogmatic stupidity I'm firing you right into the bozo bin.
David Johnston
Please cite any political leader who regarded the right of the
individual to hold private property as sacrosanct.
SaPeIsMa
> On 2/8/2011 1:27 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
>> "Chom Noamsky"<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>> news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
>>> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>>>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>>>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>>>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>>>> individual freedom and very
>>>> low taxes.
>>>>
>>>> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>>>
>>> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
>>
>> Projection.
>
> Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by Sigmund
> Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's books were
> burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's students were
> connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx if they were
> promoting socialist ideals?
>
So what ?
Does that make your projection any less projection ??
Rest of silliness ignored.
Chom Noamsky
Ever hear of Google? With it you can go look up the last 469 threads
you started on this topic and ran away from.
Chom Noamsky
> "Chom Noamsky" <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
> news:BpGdnVoskucZIczQ...@giganews.com...
>> On 2/8/2011 1:27 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>> "Chom Noamsky"<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>>> news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>>>>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>>>>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>>>>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>>>>> individual freedom and very
>>>>> low taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>>>>
>>>> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
>>>
>>> Projection.
>>
>> Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by
>> Sigmund Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's
>> books were burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's
>> students were connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx
>> if they were promoting socialist ideals?
>>
>
> So what ?
> Does that make your projection any less projection ??
>
>
> Rest of silliness ignored.
Snippage of relevant content you can't deal with noted.
Not-rebuttal of your own government's definition of "rightwing
extremist" noted.
You're not even putting an effort into being your usual lame self...
what's going on?
Eddie Haskell
> On 2/8/2011 1:27 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
>> "Chom Noamsky"<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>> news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
>>> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>>>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>>>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>>>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>>>> individual freedom and very
>>>> low taxes.
>>>>
>>>> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>>>
>>> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
>>
>> Projection.
>
> Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by Sigmund
> Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's books were
> burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's students were
> connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx if they were
> promoting socialist ideals?
Because they didn't like Marx style socialism that relied on class warfare
and a total dissolvement of private property as has been explained to you
before yet you continue to ignore like a fascist.
>> National Socialist Workers Party.
>>
>> "In 1933, with many of the above projects still in development or early
>> stages of production, Adolf Hitler declared his intentions for a
>> state-sponsored "Volkswagen" program. Hitler required a basic vehicle
>> capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62
>> mph).
>> The "People's Car" would be available to citizens of the Third Reich
>> through
>> a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small
>> motorcycle (an average income being around 32RM a week)."
>>
>> "Despite heavy lobbying in favour of one of the existing projects, Hitler
>> chose to sponsor an all new, state owned factory."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
>
> Yes, it's called state capitalism, something practiced in Canada and the
> US and many other western democracies in limited amounts. State
> capitalism is not socialism. And what Hitler practiced was a form of
> crony capitalism.
No, crony capitalism is what Hussein is practicing where the state rewards
businesses that play ball and punishes those that don't. The nazi's engaged
in fascism, socialism and crony capitalism, which are all variants of the
same side of the coin.
> Now, maybe you can explain why the Department of Homeland Security in your
> country classifies neo-Nazi groups as "rightwing extremist":
>
> http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
Because they are using the outdated use of the term. One of the primary
defining aspects of neo-nazis is anti-Semitism, which is decidedly left-wing
today, while Israel enjoys no greater ally than the American right.
Your own Hussein is anti-Semitic for example.
> An example of one of these groups the DOHS describes as rightwing
> extremist is an organization known as the "National Socialist Movement":
>
> http://www.nsm88.org/
Again, socialism is left-wing. Don't be silly, Chumpsky.
> Here is their "25 point thesis", which is almost a direct ripoff of the
> Nazi's 25 point program:
>
> http://www.nsm88.org/25points/25pointsengl.html
>
> It's a pretty common theme, neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups in
> America identify closely with Nazi values and ideals, and these groups are
> described in no uncertain terms BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT as "rightwing
> extremist".
So your point is that racism makes one right-wing? That would make Hussein
right-wing.
Now, see how foolish you've been, Chumpsky?
> Now, I'm giving you one chance that you may be able to engage in a
> semi-intelligent conversation on this, and if you resort to your usual
> dogmatic stupidity I'm firing you right into the bozo bin.
In other words you're going run away again after getting your ass handed to
you?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Better grab the KY, Chumpsky. This one's gonna sting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/18/sen-rockefeller-wishes-fcc-shut-fox-news/
http://espanol.video.yahoo.com/watch/40150/930729
""There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and
unjustified rate increases,'' Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and
Human Services, said in a letter to the insurance lobby."
""Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium
hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers
with basic protections,'' Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors could be
excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the
law. They would lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million
people nationwide."
Fascism: a system of government characterized by strong, often dictatorial
control of political and economic affairs
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=fascism&matchtype=exact
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,
forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry,
commerce, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fascism
-Eddie Haskell
Kixi
> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> individual freedom and very
> low taxes.
A few clips from a site found with a search of "Hitler worker
respect". This sounds like socialism to me.
http://adolfthegreat.com/Trails-Talent/humanitarian-maxi.html
QUOTE No.1
It was the norm in Europe that a factory owner had the power of
instant dismissal over an employee. There was no recourse anywhere for
unfair treatment from an employer. On the other hand factory owners
had no protection against crippling strikes and demands for
unrealistic wage increases.
Adolf created legal rights which were fair to both factory owner and
worker. Three regulatory bodies were legally established to provide
this protection.
QUOTE No.2
Adolf also introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe.
Overtime work was now compensated at an increased rate, which was done
nowhere else on the continent at the time. And because the eight-hour
work day was now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
QUOTE No.3
In another innovation by Adolf, work breaks were increased to two
hours each day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax and
make use of playing fields and other facilities that large industries
were now required to provide.
All German workers now also received a pension and insurance in the
event of sickness or disability.
QUOTE No.4
Adolf often toured factories, to see for himself, and hear for himself
from workers and management whether the new legislation was improving
their lot. He walked about the factories without bodyguards among
hundreds of men armed with spanners and cranes. In his twelve years
service and many factories he visited, there was never an untoward
incident. The workers idolized him.
Eddie Haskell
"David Johnston" <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e55c30c3-c4a6-4cc8...@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Well, the framers for starters, Johnson.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred
as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice
to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and
'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made
inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made
free."
-John Adams
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Chumpsky said, as he headed for the tall grass.
-Eddie Haskell
Chom Noamsky
Too bloody funny. I ask why your own government classifies neo-Nazism
as "rightwing extremism". You respond by saying, "it's an outdated use
of the term". Bahahahaha! How lame can you get. In other words,
Eddie's own government, in the form of the DOHS, an agency erected by
Eddie's beloved Republicans at great cost to constitutional rights and
the taxpayer, thinks Eddie is an idiot. Where does your assertion that
"it's an outdated use of the term" come from, your asshole?
The DOHS is just one example of a government defining groups that
identify with Nazi ideals as "rightwing extremist". You will find the
same use in France, the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, pretty much
everywhere. Why? It's universally accepted that Nazism and it's family
tree of neo-ideologies were on the far right.
Why is Eddie trying to play historical revisionist, like all the other
lame revisionists that get smacked down again and again?
Anyway, you failed in the intelligent discussion test. In the bozo bin
you go.
Chom Noamsky
Almost like clockwork! Lambourn makes another silly post and Eddie jumps
right in his lap licking for all he's worth.
Chom Noamsky
Pretty much like worker rights in Canada and the United States as they
exist today. Nothing to do with socialism, everything to do with labour
unions and constitutional rights. In fact, if you examine Hitler's
"socialism", it was not much different than the welfare states developed
in Canada, the United States, and just about every other western democracy.
Eddie Haskell
I just got through explaining all that, Chumpsky. This is a pattern with
you. You ask a question, get an answer you don't like and can't refute so
what do you do? Just keep asking the question over and over.
Try a rebuttal next time, Chumpsky.
> The DOHS is just one example of a government defining groups that identify
> with Nazi ideals as "rightwing extremist". You will find the same use in
> France, the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, pretty much everywhere. Why?
> It's universally accepted that Nazism and it's family tree of
> neo-ideologies were on the far right.
Nope. It's an outdated use of the term. Just as liberalism used to mean:
"Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited
government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech,
press, assembly, and free markets"
Now were the founders all leftist liberals as we use the term today, or were
they right-wing as we understand and use the term today?
Don't you think it's time to join here in the 21st century? Liberals are for
change and conservatives for the status quo.
No, wait..
> Why is Eddie trying to play historical revisionist, like all the other
> lame revisionists that get smacked down again and again?
Cite?
> Anyway, you failed in the intelligent discussion test. In the bozo bin you
> go.
See, folks? Ran away again.
The Chumpsky "debate" method:
1) Ask questions.
2) Get answers that he can't refute so ask the question again.
3) Claim that his opponent is guilty of what he know he is guilty of. i.e.,
claim that socialism is right-wing and then claim that his opponent is
revising history.
4) Head for the tall grass.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
You've got that shit right, Chumpsky.
I win again..
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Kixi" <Kixi...@hotmail.ca> wrote in message
news:50f16d95-f295-44d5...@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------
What a great liberal!
-Eddie Haskell
ReverendMoon
>
> Please cite any political leader who regarded the right of the
> individual to hold private property as sacrosanct.
Schoolin is fer lefties. Jonah Goldberg and Fox News tell me what to
think, not no book learnin school. Glenn Beck says history was
written by leftists who are out to discredit right wing perfection.
When super capitalist Palin becomes President, I sure hope she burns
all those leftist history books and replaces them with somethin we all
wanna hear. Look at Limbaugh and Hannity, they barely have
educations and they're richer and smarter than all their listeners.
They say that the Socialist Jews are in league with the Muslim
Brotherhood and all Republican Patriots (the only true capitalists and
conservatives in the world) should all be living in fear.
Eddie Haskell
Ah, he just unwittingly admitted that Hitler policies are left-wing.
Jolly good show, Chumpsky. Jolly good show.
-Eddie Haskell
M.I. Wakefield
"Phil" <clay...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e971b9e-51a3-4879...@4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
The reason that Cerise trots this bit of doggerel out for a walk every few
weeks is quite simple; he doesn't remember posting it before.
Due to alcohol-accelerated senile dementia, every time Cerise stumbles
across the phrase "national socialist" in his meagre library at the home, he
has an epiphany that Hitler was really a socialist, and it becomes his
single-minded mission to inform the world of his brilliant insight.
Sadly, his mental state also causes him to not remember his embarrassment
for being shot down in flames every other time he's posted his bizarro
theories since 1995.
And who is "Phil" or "Clay North" or "Cerise Lopez"?
They're all sock-puppets of Ross John Lambourn, an octogenarian retired
school teacher. Lambourn pretends to be an American uber-capitalist and
neo-conservative decision shaper, but he's actually a Canadian with no
significant private-sector work experience, living large on three
government-backed indexed pensions and free health care.
What do you expect to be doing in your mid-sixties? (Or, what were you
doing?)
Lambourn was constructing an elaborate persona he called "Cerise Lopez", a
twenty-four year old Mexican beauty queen and brilliant neo-conservative who
was his lover, despite being forty years his junior. Oh, the fun they had
... vacationing in Mexico ... fishing in the Kawarthas ... and discussing
how they weren't really nazis because Hitler was actually a socialist, and
they certainly weren't that. Sadly it all came crashing down when it was
revealed that Cerise barely knew enough Spanish to order a beer at an
all-inclusive resort ... sort of like Lambourn.
There have been various theories for Lambourn's compulsion to live a large
and dramatic life on the internet:
Is he driven by having lived in the shadow of his accomplished older
brother?
Or is he driven by living in the shadow of his younger, smarter and more
attractive wife?
Or is he driven by booze-fuelled rage for having wasted forty years of his
life on wave after wave of ungrateful snot-nosed brats, not one of whom has
ever leapt to his defence in this forum?
Eddie Haskell
"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5dk4p.29629$GL5....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Damn, more of this Lambourn obsession. Did you forget that you have already
engaged in your compulsive behavior concerning this character due to
alcohol-accelerated senile dementia?
Heh heh..
Man, turning the tables. Gotta love it..
Heh heh..
-Eddie Haskell
Chom Noamsky
Now add to that characterization a little poodle named "Eddie Haskell"
who jumps up and starts licking excitedly the minute his master appears.
How well he is trained! I bet with a little work he could even dial
911 when his master suffers his weekly bout of rumfits.
David Johnston
> "Chom Noamsky" <blahb...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>
> news:BpGdnVoskucZIczQ...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > On 2/8/2011 1:27 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
> >>news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
> >>> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
> >>>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> >>>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> >>>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> >>>> individual freedom and very
> >>>> low taxes.
>
> >>>> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>
> >>> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
>
> >> Projection.
>
> > Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by Sigmund
> > Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's books were
> > burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's students were
> > connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx if they were
> > promoting socialist ideals?
>
> Because they didn't like Marx style socialism that relied on class warfare
> and a total dissolvement of private property as has been explained to you
> before yet you continue to ignore like a fascist.
>
That kind of sounds like they were something different from
socialists.
Marcus Aurelius
criminal enterprise rather than a. economic system based upon an
economic-political philosophy. NAZI economic practices utilized
criminal means, motives, and objectives not capitalistic, socialistic,
nor communist means, motives, and objectives.
Erik®
> >
> > > A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> > > or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> > > right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> > > individual freedom and very
> > > low taxes.
> >
> >
> > Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
>
> because, "In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain
> the masters of the the world, and their dominion is suspended only for
> brief periods".
>
>
> >
> > What you really should do is go back and address the countless factual
> > and historical rebuttals that you have run away from like a little coward.
>
> And just what are these "factual rebuttals" that supposedly show
> the individual to hold private property as
> .
You advocate many of the same policies Hitler did. Does that make you a
socialist?
Kixi
Oddly enough the German people who chose National Socialism and gave
approval to the leadership over a 12 year rein did not agree with the
above poster. It's not likely he knows something they didn't.
It is interesting that even those who promote the most vile lies about
Adolph never accuse him of being corrupt.
M.I. Wakefield
> On Feb 8, 6:41 pm, Marcus Aurelius <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > NAZIsm, in NAZI Germany, can be best described as an organized
> > criminal enterprise rather than a. economic system based upon an
> > economic-political philosophy. NAZI economic practices utilized
> > criminal means, motives, and objectives not capitalistic, socialistic,
> > nor communist means, motives, and objectives.
>
> Oddly enough the German people who chose National Socialism and gave
> approval to the leadership over a 12 year rein did not agree with the
> above poster. It's not likely he knows something they didn't.
I wonder how the 6th Army on the Volga felt about him? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...
too soon?
> It is interesting that even those who promote the most vile lies about
> Adolph never accuse him of being corrupt.
Yeah. He never took abused his powers by waiving his outstanding tax bill.
Oh, that's right ... he did.
There you go; evil and corrupt.
per...@3web.com
> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> individual freedom and very
> low taxes.
>
>
> http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
Calling Hitler socialist makes as much sense as saying that the USSR
was run by Republicans because their name is in the country's title.
Ask Henry Ford what kind of socialist Hitler was. Oh, he's dead.
Well, ask the current Krupps, or the Siemenses...
SaPeIsMa
No less socialism for all that.
SaPeIsMa
> On 2/8/2011 2:07 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> "Chom Noamsky" <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>> news:BpGdnVoskucZIczQ...@giganews.com...
>>> On 2/8/2011 1:27 PM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>>> "Chom Noamsky"<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>>>>>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>>>>>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>>>>>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>>>>>> individual freedom and very
>>>>>> low taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>>>>>
>>>>> Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
>>>>
>>>> Projection.
>>>
>>> Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by
>>> Sigmund Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's
>>> books were burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's
>>> students were connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx
>>> if they were promoting socialist ideals?
>>>
>>
>> So what ?
>> Does that make your projection any less projection ??
>>
>>
>> Rest of silliness ignored.
>
> Snippage of relevant content you can't deal with noted.
It has been dealt with multiple times
That you choose to ignore the facts is not my problem but yours\
Your mind as as open as a paranoid claim in a field of starfish.
Not worth any more of my time to waste
Rest if idiocy and projection ignored
SaPeIsMa
news:df256f99-dceb-4ad3...@h19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Well that describes socialism to a "T".
SaPeIsMa
news:62388905-9018-48ee...@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 8, 3:58 pm, Phil <clayno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> individual freedom and very
> low taxes.
>
> The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>
> http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
# Calling Hitler socialist makes as much sense as saying that the USSR
# was run by Republicans because their name is in the country's title.
# Ask Henry Ford what kind of socialist Hitler was. Oh, he's dead.
# Well, ask the current Krupps, or the Siemenses...
<YAWN>
More stupid sophistry.
Eddie Haskell
There are no degrees of socialism DNC talking point noted. The US government
could own every means of production in the country but if a kid were left to
operate a lemonade stand in Topeka Kansas the US wouldn't be socialist.
Nice try.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Erik�" <er...@loosends.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.27bba8f52...@news.eternal-september.org...
If he advocates Hitler's socialist policies he is.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Didn't Hussein have a little talk with you about that mean and hateful
rhetoric, Chumpsky?
At any rate, no retort.
I win again.
-Eddie Haskell
Callida
Eddie Haskell
"auda...@hotmail.com" <per...@3web.com> wrote in message
news:62388905-9018-48ee...@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
National Socialist Workers Party.
"In 1933, with many of the above projects still in development or early
stages of production, Adolf Hitler declared his intentions for a
state-sponsored "Volkswagen" program. Hitler required a basic vehicle
capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph).
The "People's Car" would be available to citizens of the Third Reich through
a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small
motorcycle (an average income being around 32RM a week)."
"Despite heavy lobbying in favour of one of the existing projects, Hitler
chose to sponsor an all new, state owned factory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
-Eddie Haskell
Roy
> "audax...@hotmail.com" <perm...@3web.com> wrote in message
==
Eddie Haskell our little Nazi spawn.
==
Eddie Haskell
"Roy" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef01d140-4acb-41d4...@m27g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> Eddie Haskell our little Nazi spawn.
What has Hussein told you about that hateful and incendiary rhetoric?
I'm forwarding a copy of your post to Janet Napolitano as we speek.
-Eddie Haskell
Canad...@global.com
"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qJv4p.65057$3D....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Kixi" <Kixi...@hotmail.ca> wrote in message
> news:1289372a-5a80-46d6...@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 8, 6:41 pm, Marcus Aurelius <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[SNIPPED]
Canad...@global.com
"Chom Noamsky" <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
news:u4ednQhQLYasLMzQ...@giganews.com...
> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
[snipped]
per...@3web.com
" ...More stupid sophistry"
no thank you. I've already heard plenty. Hitler a socialist...
(snicker)... that must be why he locked so many of them up.
Eddie Haskell
> ReverendMoon wrote
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 5:01 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Please cite any political leader who regarded the right of the
> >> individual to hold private property as sacrosanct.
>
> > Schoolin is fer lefties. Jonah Goldberg and Fox News tell me what to
> > think, not no book learnin school. Glenn Beck says history was
> > written by leftists who are out to discredit right wing perfection.
>
> > When super capitalist Palin becomes President, I sure hope she burns
> > all those leftist history books and replaces them with somethin we all
> > wanna hear. Look at Limbaugh and Hannity, they barely have
> > educations and they're richer and smarter than all their listeners.
> > They say that the Socialist Jews are in league with the Muslim
> > Brotherhood and all Republican Patriots (the only true capitalists and
> > conservatives in the world) should all be living in fear.
>
> Most rightists appear to parrot what they're told to, they have no minds of
> their own.
>
> Gullible.
>
> They like being lied to because they're too weak to face the truth.
Hitler was a liberal just like Ronnie Reagan. Once a liberal always a
liberal, a tiger can't change its stripes.
I win again! Another glorious victory for me!!!
--
Eddie Haskell
SilentOtto
> "audax...@hotmail.com" <perm...@3web.com> wrote in message
Sophistry is when some rightard tries to redefine the entire political
spectrum so he can place the Nazis on the left.
You never did provide an example of a right wing government, according
to your criteria, before you Sir Robbined on us in the last thread
where this was discussed.
(SaPelsMa bravely ran away.)
Neither did you answer why, if Hitler was left wing, he didn't arrest
members of right wing political groups and toss them into
concentration camps along with his socialist rivals.
Ewwwwwwww....
You just soiled yourself again, didn't you rightard?
Heh heh...
Rightard revisionists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Harold Burton
<a10b8513-16a7-4e60...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
SilentOtto <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sophistry is when some . . .
. . . .lefturd tries to redefine the entire political spectrum so he
can place Nazis on the right.
Hahahahahahahahahahhaha
Topaz
wrote:
>A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>individual freedom and very
>low taxes.
>
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Topaz
<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
>Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by
>Sigmund Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's
>books were burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's
>students were connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx
>if they were promoting socialist ideals?
>
The Communists didn't do anything good for people. Therefore they were
not socialists. The National Socialists were the true socialists:
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."
Topaz
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 have 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
wrote:
>Because they didn't like Marx style socialism that relied on class warfare
>and a total dissolvement of private property as has been explained to you
Exactly
>before yet you continue to ignore like a fascist.
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have 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."
>No, crony capitalism is what Hussein is practicing where the state rewards
>businesses that play ball and punishes those that don't. The nazi's engaged
>in fascism, socialism and crony capitalism, which are all variants of the
>same side of the coin.
Franklin Roosevelt did some things to help people. But he didn't
really upset the money bag parasites who rule over us. Only Hitler did
that.
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty
of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people,
demanding that Germans repay every nation's cost of the (First World)
war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in
Germany.
Jewish currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet,
precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A
wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of
bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms
were lost to Jewish speculators and private banks. Germans lived in
hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of
the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and
businesses. On top of all this came a global depression. Germany had
no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international Jewish
bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At
that point, the German government thwarted the international Jewish
banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by
declaring a global economic boycott of Germany.
Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public
works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and
private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals,
and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no
longer came from the private international Jewish bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion
units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German
government issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury
Certificates. In this way, the National Socialists put people to
work.
Under the National Socialists, Germany's money wasn't backed by gold.
It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the
government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we require the
equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." Workers
spent those Certificates on on other people's goods and services, thus
creating more jobs for more people. In this way, the German people
climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the Jew bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and
Germany was back on it's feet. It had a solid, stable currency with
no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the US
and other Western countries were still out of work. Within five
years, Germany went from being the poorest nation in Europe to the
richest!
Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the global
boycott by Jew-owned enterprises, and the denial of foreign credit by
Jew-owned banks. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment
and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system
that cut the Jew bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since
barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits.
Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several
monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive
superhighway. This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with
the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory,
which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned
by a private and secretive banking cartel - such as the Federal
Reserve, or the European Central Bank - rather than issued by the
government for the benefit of the people.
In "Billions For The Bankers, Debts For The People" (1984), Shelton
Emry commented:
"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which
accounts for Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world
power in five years. The German government financed its entire
operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took
the entire Capitalist and Communist worlds to destroy the German
revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Jewish
bankers."
>Because they are using the outdated use of the term. One of the primary
>defining aspects of neo-nazis is anti-Semitism, which is decidedly left-wing
>today, while Israel enjoys no greater ally than the American right.
>
>Again, socialism is left-wing. Don't be silly, Chumpsky.
>
>So your point is that racism makes one right-wing? That would make Hussein
>right-wing.
>
>Now, see how foolish you've been, Chumpsky?
Topaz
<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
>Too bloody funny. I ask why your own government classifies neo-Nazism
>as "rightwing extremism". You respond by saying, "it's an outdated use
>of the term". Bahahahaha! How lame can you get. In other words,
>Eddie's own government, in the form of the DOHS, an agency erected by
>Eddie's beloved Republicans at great cost to constitutional rights and
>the taxpayer, thinks Eddie is an idiot. Where does your assertion that
>"it's an outdated use of the term" come from, your asshole?
One of the posters the National Socialists put on walls said "left"
and "right" were outdated terms.
>
>The DOHS is just one example of a government defining groups that
>identify with Nazi ideals as "rightwing extremist". You will find the
>same use in France, the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, pretty much
>everywhere. Why? It's universally accepted that Nazism and it's family
>tree of neo-ideologies were on the far right.
>
>Why is Eddie trying to play historical revisionist, like all the other
>lame revisionists that get smacked down again and again?
>
>Anyway, you failed in the intelligent discussion test. In the bozo bin
>you go.
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
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
Topaz
"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."
Topaz
Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left..
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932..
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them..
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production..
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; ..
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable..
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career..
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government..
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."..
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"..
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone..
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class..
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose..
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday..
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio..
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, Andr� Fran�ois-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. Fran�ois-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade � Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?..
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products..
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable..
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift f�r Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century..
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together..
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn..
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around..
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses..
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(F�hrer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it..
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution..
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant..
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1.The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it approves
of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may also
apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as established
when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will apply as
well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be applied
in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the Distress
of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick..
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?..
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.
Topaz
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
with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
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
workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the
goal of the enterprise and the common good of
800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing
fields;
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
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
uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the poorest
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
united people was being born.
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
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."
Topaz
Here is a letter by Otto Deissenroth, Military Post Number 12 827D
In the East, 30.7.1941
Dear Comrade Karl !
I write this letter from the desolation of a Ukrainian forest village,
40 kilometers from Kiev, which we hope to capture in a few days. The
fruitful land of the Ukraine is all around us, but 20 years of
Bolshevist mismanagement have brought it to ruin. The poverty, misery
and filth we have seen and experienced in the past weeks is
indescribable. You back home cannot imagine the terrible results of
Bolshevism in this fruitful land. Everything that we formerly read in
newspapers and books pales in the face of the terrible reality. Our
eyes look in vain for some sign of construction, for a trace of
progress, for a bit of culture. We yearn for the sight of a clean
house, an orderly street, a few tended gardens, a few trees! Wherever
we look there is filth, decay, desolation, misery, death and
suffering! Everywhere we see the ghost of Bolshevism in the tortured
look of farmers, the blank stares of captives, the hundreds of
murdered people, the farm houses of impoverished buildings and ruined
houses. I sometimes think it is all the work of the devil.
The land was rich when it was inhabited by German, Ukrainian, Czech
and Polish farmers. Then Bolshevism came, and with it enormous misery.
Everything that was prosperous or cultured was killed or burned. I
spoke with dozens of people whose family members, fathers, husbands,
brothers and sons perished somewhere in Murmansk, Siberia or the icy
north. Thousands died during the great famine, particularly in
1932-1933. Thousands more ended up in prisons and jails. The misery of
those freed from Bolshevism is indescribable. Any free expression was
prohibited, any movement banned.
Everything in nature that was beautiful, good and free was destroyed.
Everything created by God was exterminated! They took the blessing
from the land and the soul from the people. They reduced them to the
level of animals, impotent, miserable enslaved animals with no hope of
life who did not know if they would be alive tomorrow, who lived from
hand to mouth, and were happy only when someone killed them. Hell can
be no worse that this "Soviet paradise." There is no hope of
salvation. What Bolshevism has done to humanity is a sin against God,
a crime one cannot begin to understand. Every German who formerly
thought Bolshevism was a worthy idea and who threatened we National
Socialists with death and bloodshed only because we didn't believe in
this nonsense should be ashamed! We were right! We are all shaken and
moved as we face this misery, this suffering, this hopeless Bolshevist
life. They stole everything from these people except the very air they
breathed. The land they inherited from their fathers became a
collective, the property of the state, and they became slaves worse
than those of the darkest Middle Ages in Germany. They had a tiny plot
of land of their own, and even that was heavily taxed. They had to
report to the collective's commissars each morning, work the whole
day, even Sunday, with no free time. They belonged to the state. They
were supposedly paid, but rarely saw the money. They got 33 kopeks a
day, about a third of a Mark. They owned no plow, no spade, no wagon,
no yoke. Everything supposedly belonged to everyone, everything
belonged to the state.
The Jews and party bigwigs lived in prosperity, the farmers had only
hunger, misery, work and death. No one felt himself responsible for
the soil, no one felt the love we Germans have for our homeland, for
the soil that is ours. The knowledge of blood and soil had died out. I
spoke with 30-year-olds who did not understand the concept of
property. They had been educated in Soviet schools. That explains why
they had no sense of culture, no need for it. Their homes are empty,
cold and desolate, much poorer than in Poland. No pictures, no flowers
break the desolation. The art of cooking also disappeared, given the
food shortages. The daily diet consists of milk and bread, along with
a bit of honey and a few potatoes. When one see this dismal poverty,
one is reminded that these Bolshevist animals wanted to bring culture
to us industrious, clean and creative Germans. How God has blessed us!
How justified is the Führer's claim to European leadership! The
poorest German village is a pearl in comparison to these ruined
Russian villages.
Sometimes as I face the thousands of murdered people that we found in
the cities and villages, and in the numerous occasions where we found
women and children wailing over the corpses of their family members,
or when they asked us to free their men who had been hauled off just
before we arrived, I see the Führer before me. He saved an enslaved
and raped humanity, giving it once more divine freedom and the
blessing of a worthy existence. The last and deepest reason for this
war is to restore the natural and godly order. It is a battle against
slavery, against Bolshevist insanity. I am proud, deeply proud, that I
may fight against this Bolshevist monster, fighting once again the
enemy I fought to destroy during the hard years of struggle in
Germany. I am proud of the wounds I suffered during the election
battles in Germany, and I am proud of my new wounds, and of the medal
that I now wear. It is as if the people here are awakening from a deep
sleep. They cannot yet believe in their new freedom; they do not know
where to begin. They sit down and wait for orders. Now they have them:
"Go back to work, harvest the fields, now you have your own home."
That is what all the posters say, and one sees the masses at work in
the fields. Man and nature are free again, God has his place once
more, his eternal order has been restored. We National Socialist
soldiers of Adolf Hitler have restored the godly order, though some
call us heathens. That is the way life is. And what did those who
spoke about God do? Ask them!"
The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration. During
the whole period of the red dictatorship, they were the beneficiaries.
This was clearest in the small nations that the Soviet Union was using
to prepare for its attack on the Greater German Reich after the
outbreak of Churchill's war, above all in the Baltic states.
Fred Fallnbigl wrote to his Parents in Salzburg, 17.7.41
I wrote in my last two letters about Russian atrocities, and could
fill volumes more.
But a bit more from the Soviet Paradise. I'll especially tell you
about things that happened in Lemberg-Tarnopol and Tromborla.
Tromborla is due south of Tarnopol. I saw the prisons in Lemberg, and
saw things that struck me deeply. There were men with their ears and
noses cut off, etc. They had nailed children alive by their hands and
feet to the wall, butchering them. The blood was ankle deep. It didn't
make any difference if they were alive or dead. They doused the piles
of bodies with gasoline and set them on fire. The stench was terrible.
I saw similar things in Tarnopol and Tromborla. In T. seven Ukrainians
were hauled out of their beds after the Germans had arrived. The next
morning their bodies were found in the woods, beaten until they were
unrecognizable. I have seen all of this myself, they are not matters I
heard about. Feel free to tell them to others, particularly those who
may still think well of the Soviet Union.
I always think how fortunate we are that this scourge of humanity
never made it to our country. I don't think that even years of
preparation would make Germans capable of such atrocities
Paul Rubelt, Military Post Number 34 539 F, wrote to Miss Grete Egger,
Lebring 71, Steieirark:
6.7.1941
"I was in Lemberg yesterday and saw a bloodbath. It was terrible. Many
had their skin stripped off, men were castrated, their eyes poked out,
arms or legs chopped off. Some were nailed to the wall, 30-40 were
sealed into a small room and suffocated. About 650 people in this area
must have died in such ways. The stench can be endured only if one
smokes a cigarette and keeps a handkerchief over one's nose. The Jews
did most of it. Now they have to dig the graves. The culprits will be
shot. Many already died because of the stench. In this city they even
opened graves and defiled the corpses. It is terrible. One can hardly
believe that such people exist."
There are few families in Germany today who do not have a member,
and therefore an eyewitness of Bolshevism. These letters already
circulate within families and factories, villages and party local
groups. Now they reach millions who are working for victory, giving
them a broader picture of the experiences and impressions of their
brothers and sons.
No one will put this pamphlet down without being deeply moved. His
thoughts will then turn to the Führer, the man who in the midst of
Germany's deepest disgrace was the first to recognize and oppose the
communist enemy. The few units of the SA and the SS that opposed the
Bolshevist-Jewish enemy when Moscow's terror still prevailed in the
streets of our great cities, when Red revolution threatened whole
states and provinces of the Reich, and Moscow's Foreign Legion
murdered German men on German soil, now have the whole German people
with them. The enormous columns of German regiments and divisions are
striking Bolshevism deep in Russia. At the right time and with careful
forethought, the Führer, side by side with all the awakened European
nations, gave the command to save the West. The decision was
difficult, the scale of the struggle vast, and the results tremendous.
Everyone today can see that the order given on 22 June 1941 was the
greatest decision in Europe's life. The Bolshevist armies that today
are being destroyed by the blows of the German army, blows from which
they will never recover, were ready to attack Europe. Despite the
treaties, the Bolshevist leaders were ready to attack when the hour
was right. The presumed state of workers and soldiers had secret
agreements with the plutocracies and capitalism. They were preparing
the way for World Jewry to take over Central Europe.
If Stalin's tanks and planes had crossed our borders, it would have
been the end of everything noble and beautiful in the world. Europe
would have been filled with enslaved masses like the prisoners our
soldiers find today in the East. A whole part of the world would have
fallen into filth and misery if Adolf Hitler had not at the last
moment intervened to forever eliminate the criminal danger.
We may not forget it. Moscow's criminals are praised as heroes and
defenders of culture every day by the English and American press.
People in London and New York pray for these animals in human form,
and thousands of Jewish editors, speakers and radio announcers are at
work recruiting American youth to shed their blood for these
subhumans.
This lying and decaying world of plutocracy along with its Bolshevist
allies may not and will not win. No sacrifice is too great in
comparison to what is at risk, and what victory will bring us in the
future.
Topaz
An elite ruling class has risen in Western Civilization-at the top of
this elite are the merchant bankers who are Zionist (Jewish
supremacist) Jews who believe in racial superiority and class
superiority and in the right of power -- the power to take control of
nations that where liberal republics and, by control and manipulation
of the money supply, by the creation of monopolies, especially of
capital and land, convert these nations into plutocracies where the
middle classes are plundered and robbed of political participation and
voice-or, as often as not, they have their control from outright
conquest-as the defeat of Germany after both world wars, as the
subjugation of Russian under (Jewish-and covertly banker-controlled)
communism..
the great depression (in which Baruch and Percy Rockefeller were
involved -- the stock-market crash was an operation not unlike the
Sept. 11 attacks, where $100 billion in assets (in 1929 dollars!!!)
was transferred from those who sold on the way down to those who
bought up all of that industrial capital at bottom prices (assets were
not destroyed, they just changed hands -- from middle-class investors
to the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Baruch etc.)
an attack on the United States that robbed its people of their wealth,
their political participation and way of life. Many books would be
needed to tell you all that the merchant bankers have against the
human race and what they are doing against us today.
I know that many Moslems -- I write "Moslems" and not "Muslims"
because 50 years ago in the United States publications used the term
Moslems, and I remember an English teacher telling me that "Muslims"
was a spelling that carried a pejorative cargo, and now I find, in
this Jewish age, that "Muslim" is exclusively used by the Jewish
media, and so I will still use "Moslems"-just so you understand --
now, as I was saying -- I know that many Moslems believe that Saddam
Hussein was evil because he fought back when the Kurds attempted to
overthrow him or that he used brutal tactics against those whom he
thought the CIA was using to overthrow his country or because he is
Sunni and not Shiite-I don't know-but for whatever reason some Moslems
say they are glad Saddam Huessein is gone -- but I look at it
differently -- to me Saddam Hussein was a nationalist who was for
this country and wanted it to be great, wanted its people-all of
them-to be great. He did all that was in his power to make Iraq a
great and good country. But Saddam Hussein's nationalism and
pro-population view ran counter to the world order that the Jewish
bankers want. And so Saddam Hussein was lured into-perhaps the war
with Iran (I do not know the particulars here) -- but more important
he was definitely lured into attacking Kuwait -- attempting to
reunite a part of his country-as Red China seeks to reunite Taiwan
(the Republic of China) with China-or, looking at it anther way -- as
the Republic of China (Taiwan) would like to reunited the mainland
with itself (and, yes, the Jewish bankers supported communist
mass-murderer Mao against the liberalizing party of Sun Yat Sen and a
nationalist republic -- Zhou Enlai murdered Sun Yat Sen.) -- but
back to Saddam Hussein -- Saddam Hussein was a populist-and he was
elected to his office -- and it is exactly populist nationalist
leaders that the Jewish bankers seek to destroy-the Jewish merchant
bankers do not want countries where the masses have a high standard of
living and a culture (and a faith in God) of their own -- the Jewish
merchant bankers did not want Saddam Hussein showing the world what a
country could do if it devoted its wealth to national development --
and so they lured him into a war so that the United States could make
war with him in 1990 Gulf War -- then US President George Bush
actually signaled US permission for Saddam Hussein to go ahead with
his invasion over the issue of slant drilling-only after this-and
after a flood of Jewish newsmedia propaganda-now all shown to be lies
(like the falsely alleged stealing of hospital intensive-care
neo-natal isolets-which never happened) and so the Americans led an
expedition to slaughter. And after that came the sanctions --
started under the older Bush and continued by Bill Clinton (both
tools of the Jewish Merchant Bankers)
sanctions that starved millions, that prevented Saddam Hussein from
furthering his national policies-sanctions, but also the no-fly zones
and bombing sortees (more bombing sortees were flown during the eleven
years of sanctions than were flown during the actual Gulf War)
sanctions that prevented even current medical journals-during the
sanctions hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under five died
during the 1990's from preventable, curable diseases: primarily
water-borne bacteriological infections and acute respiratory
infections that Iraq simply lacked the anti-biotic and other medicine
to cure (what irony when the US supposedly went to war over stolen
infant-care isolets that were never actually stolen!) -- prevented
from reaching Iraq due to sanctions-whereas in the 1980's Iraq's
medical facilities were comparable to those in the United States. In
the name of preventing Iraq from developing weapons the sanctions
destroyed all of Iraq's industry and trade. But this is as nothing
compared to what the Jewish Merchant Bankers are doing to Iraq today.
The attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 were false-flag
attacks conducted by Mossad and Zionist Jews with primary loyalty to
Israel who had infiltrated the Bush administration, especially the
defense department, but also every other strategic position that
needed to be covered in order to pull of the false-flag attack. The
purpose of the attack was to motivate the United States' war on Islam
and to degrade the American republic in the same way and for the same
reason that the Jewish merchant bankers sought to degrade Iraq. (They
also wanted to control Afganistan-but that was more because the Moslem
Taliban had been erradicating the opium crops that provide the basic
ingredient for Chinese heroin sold in Europe and elsewhere with
revenues of over a $trillion a year that are laundered into the Jewish
Merchant banks and then invested in the industrialization of China.)
And the US Occupation of Saddam Hussein's country has included the
presence of Israeli advisors -- who have not simply advised on
torture techniques and methods for turning Iraq into Palestine -- but
have also been kidnapping and murdering or simply gunning down all of
the intellectuals, scientists and academics and engineers and skilled
leaders of Iraq -- dumbing down the nation, robbing it of the
intelligence needed to run a modern high-standard-of-living society
-- because of Jewish hatred and racism -- the racism and hatred that
has been fomented by the sponsors of Zionism, that is, by the Jewish
Merchant Bankers who seek to run the world -- who in fact to run- and
own-the world at this very minute.
Remember how Mohammed Omar told George Bush that he would arrest and
extradite Ossama bin Laden if the US would only supply some evidence
linking bin Ladin to the September attacks. Bush would not -- so he
invaded and all those people died (and are still dying). Remember how
Saddam Hussein invited the CIA itself to come in and freely inspect
his country for "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Bush refused the
offer, insisting upon attacking-his administration knowing that there
was no real evidence of WMD's. The official reasons for these wars
were all lies -- it is the agenda of the Jewish merchant bankers that
these wars, these deaths, these destructions of nations take place.
It is no accident that the Jewish Merchant Bankers-the Zionists --
are at war with Islam. Islam is a universal faith -- all people are
enjoined to submit to Allah and to acknowledge the prophet of God
Mohammed-and thus all become brothers -- a faith with no drugs or
alcohol or pornography (which the Jews promote to destroy others so
that they may gain) and without usury.. The Israelis in Iraq are also
blowing up Shiites so that Sunnis will be blamed -- promoting wars
between these two groups that have lived in peace for so long before
the coming of the Americans and their Israelis advisors.)
Christianity has been taken over by Zionists -- the tops of the
denominations have been bought -- the Christian religious
broadcasters are all Zionist propagandists-the publishers are all
pushing the Zionist line -- and the teachings of Jesus are forgotten
(love your enemy, turn the cheek, return good for evil, die to self,
wash each other's feet, to give is better than to receive etc.) --
and Americans-being shown by the Jew-controlled media a picture of
"evil" Islam, of "Muslims" as terrorists who "hate our freedoms" and
other totally false stupidities that propaganda instills -- and so
the United States is dead to faith in God. It is banished in the
porno-debt-slavery-dumbed-down-and-deceived culture that the Jewish
merchant bankers have alotted to the people who were once middle-class
America.
Only the Moslems are fighting global domination by Jewish merchant
bankers-not all Moslems, but many of them are fighting -- and how do
you fight an enemy so powerful, with such economic and political
might, with such technology of killing and control? Strapping a bomb
to oneself is not a very effective means of fighting-but it is all
that is available to those who do it -- and they fight for their
country, and for their very ability to worship Allah-which the Jews
are determined to take away and replace with their own version of
Islam, just has they have created their own version of Zionism-serving
Christianity..
Chom Noamsky
> WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT SOME ASSHOLE DEAD OVER 65 YEARS?
Karen Gordon, is somebody holding a gun to your head forcing you to read
posts you're not interested in?
If so, PULL THE TRIGGER!!!
Erik�
It's remarkable that she never attacks the person who initiates these
threads. In most cases this is Mr. Lambourn. I wonder if there's
something the two of them aren't telling 'us all'?
Chom Noamsky
She's just miffed because I won't stop calling her Karen Gordon.
Buster Norris
<silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The famous MonkeyOtto chit-chat has gone, replaced with FEAR,
replaced with LOATHING and HATRED............
You can't run,
you can't hide,
we will meet,
I will punish you...........
SissyOtto has nowhere to RUN.........
PussyOtto has nowhere to hide............
RetardOtto can't change the subject..............
CowardOtto is a Buster-BUSTED Coward..................
StupidOtto is POUNDED and POUNDED and POUNDED
as EVERYONE watches and points and laughs..............
The COWARD NiggyOtto tried to change the subject................
The COWARD NiggyOtto tried to RUN AWAY!!!!!!!
Everybody saw MonkeyOtto try to run...............
Everybody saw MonkeyOtto try to HIDE..................
Everybody saw MonkeyOtto LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You said I didn't have your address, then you said I did have your
address, NOW EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU'RE A LIAR..........................
Were you lying the 1st time 0R were you lying the 2nd time, SissyOtto?
You challenged me THEN RAN AND HID like a dark brown high school
dropout, PussyOtto......
EVERYBODY sees your cowardice, RetardOtto.........
I'm still waiting on you, NiggerOtto.
Let's do this, COWARD................
I'm right here BOY, in your face BOY, and I'm not leaving
BOY...........
I'm still waiting on you, CowardOtto.
Still waiting on you, NiggerOtto..............................
Dave Heil
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:58:19 -0800, Chom Noamsky
> <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by
>> Sigmund Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's
>> books were burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's
>> students were connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx
>> if they were promoting socialist ideals?
>>
>
> The Communists didn't do anything good for people. Therefore they were
> not socialists. The National Socialists were the true socialists:
>
>
You're just a mindless automaton, Toothpaste. You are incapable of
thought. You can only do what you're programmed to do.
Dave Heil
>
> "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
So the real estate, jewelry, antiques and furniture he confiscated from
Jews--that was simply a misunderstanding? The mountains of clothing
they surrendered at the death camps--another misunderstanding?
How about the mountains of suitcases and shoes? Where they a
misunderstanding over private property?
Go hide under your baseboard, evil little Toe Jam! You're a lying bastard.
Erik�
>
> "Erikￜ" <er...@loosends.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.27bba8f52...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Phil wrote...
> >>
> >> On Feb 8, 4:10 pm, Chom Noamsky <blahb...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
> >> > On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> >> > > or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> >> > > right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> >> > > individual freedom and very
> >> > > low taxes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Give it up. You've been spanked about a thousand times on this one.
> >>
> >> I have never been spanked. However, common sense is often a hard sell
> >> because, "In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain
> >> the masters of the the world, and their dominion is suspended only for
> >> brief periods".
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What you really should do is go back and address the countless factual
> >> > and historical rebuttals that you have run away from like a little
> >> > coward.
> >>
> >> And just what are these "factual rebuttals" that supposedly show
> >> Hitler was pro-capitalist, pro-free trade, and regarded the right of
> >> the individual to hold private property as
> >> .
> >
> > You advocate many of the same policies Hitler did. Does that make you a
> > socialist?
>
> If he advocates Hitler's socialist policies he is.
The only real difference between Nazi Germany and today's version of
Commie China is the warmongering and of course the invasions. Commie
China is morphing into a state much like Hitler created.
"Phil" is a long time admirer of this system - he has stated as much
repeatedly. His occasional dropping of 'libertarian' quotes at the end
of his posts notwithstanding.
I'm not an American, but I recognize that America has long been the
bulwark against Communism and Fascism, and I'm worried that that's
slipping. US gov'ts are getting too big and taking too much control
over peoples' lives.
"Phil" repeatedly calls for the US Constition to be suspended. "What
the hell, they're violating it all the time anyway", he says. Wouldn't
anyone who actually respects that document want it to be adhered to and
even strengthened?
"Phil" has complained that the US steel industry is broken, while
pointing to the state-owned steel industry in Commie China as some kind
of model. Sure out-of-control unionism has made US industry
uncompetitive, but would you really want the gov't (or Commie China) to
take it over?
SilentOtto
> In article
> <a10b8513-16a7-4e60-90a4-d77510d84...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Sophistry is when some . . .
>
> . . . .lefturd tries to redefine the entire political spectrum so he
> can place Nazis on the right.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahhaha
Awwwww...
Isn't that cute.
You'll grow up to be a good widdle rightard some day.
Heh heh...
Rightards....
Chom Noamsky
You mean non-existent unionism in China and elsewhere has made US
industry uncompetitive. All the wage gains for workers since the 50s
are slowly but surely being rubbed out, in spite of union pressure,
because just an ocean away there are a couple of billion non-union
people who will work for 25 cents an hour. Sure, it's a "competitive"
wage. Heck, it be even more competitive if they were just rounded up
and forced to work for food. When a decent living wage is sacrificed
for the sake of being competitive I think all is lost.
Michael Ejercito
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:58:19 -0800, Chom Noamsky
>
> >Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by
> >Sigmund Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's
> >books were burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's
> >students were connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx
> >if they were promoting socialist ideals?
>
> The Communists didn't do anything good for people.
Of course, you are right much less often than a stopped clock is.
>Therefore they were
> not socialists. The National Socialists were the true socialists:
>
And what good did the National Socialists do for the Jews in
Auschwitz?
Michael
per...@3web.com
> "audax...@hotmail.com" <perm...@3web.com> wrote in message
>
> news:62388905-9018-48ee...@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> > or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> > right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> > individual freedom and very
> > low taxes.
>
>
> >http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
>
>
> "In 1933, with many of the above projects still in development or early
> stages of production, Adolf Hitler declared his intentions for a
> state-sponsored "Volkswagen" program. Hitler required a basic vehicle
> capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph).
> The "People's Car" would be available to citizens of the Third Reich through
> a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small
> motorcycle (an average income being around 32RM a week)."
>
> "Despite heavy lobbying in favour of one of the existing projects, Hitler
> chose to sponsor an all new, state owned factory."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen
>
> -Eddie Haskell
fascism/corporatism is the reverse of socialism. Big business takes
over government instead of vice versa, much like the oligarchy system
in the current version of Russia where the process is more noticable
because of the speed of the transition.
Ford is the mirror of VW... but that is for later.
SaPeIsMa
news:d38fa765-ff47-403c...@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
# fascism/corporatism is the reverse of socialism.
#
Actually, it's NOT !
Instead of taking over the corporations, fascism just controls them
absolutely through regulations and laws to push the socialist agenda
The recent case of Fannie and Freddie Mae is a classic example of a
corporate entity aloowed to behave against the public interest to push the
socialist agenda of the Democrats
No real difference, when you come down to the bottom line.
#
# Big business takes over government instead of vice versa,
# much like the oligarchy system in the current version of Russia
# where the process is more noticable because of the speed
# of the transition.
# Ford is the mirror of VW... but that is for later.
DOH !
And the bottom line is a that a small group of people control both the
government and business to line their pockets and control everyone else.
Both are dictatorships which control from the top-down/
No difference otherwise.
Chom Noamsky
> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> individual freedom and very
> low taxes.
The Nazis capitalist credentials:
"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
The Nazis Christian credentials:
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and
unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany." -
Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
Children, can you say "FAR RIGHT CONSERVATIVE".
Eddie Haskell
"Chom Noamsky" <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
news:-budnQML_8GgC87Q...@giganews.com...
> On 2/9/2011 9:37 PM, Erik� wrote:
>> Eddie Haskell wrote...
>>>
>>> "Erik�"<er...@loosends.org> wrote in message
Funny how Toyota and Nissan build factories here and pay good middle-class
wages while GM went broke and is now building out of the country. Just
ignore that fact. It's a requirement.
And if you dare spout your stupid DNC talking point that GM went belly-up
because they build shitty cars I'm going to come over there and back hand
the shit out of you.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"SilentOtto" <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a10b8513-16a7-4e60...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 9, 10:00 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "audax...@hotmail.com" <perm...@3web.com> wrote in message
>
> news:62388905-9018-48ee...@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> > or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> > right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> > individual freedom and very
> > low taxes.
>
>
> >http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
>
> # Calling Hitler socialist makes as much sense as saying that the USSR
> # was run by Republicans because their name is in the country's title.
> # Ask Henry Ford what kind of socialist Hitler was. Oh, he's dead.
> # Well, ask the current Krupps, or the Siemenses...
>
> <YAWN>
> More stupid sophistry.
> Sophistry is when some rightard tries to redefine the entire political
> spectrum so he can place the Nazis on the left.
> You never did provide an example of a right wing government
The United States as envisioned by the founders.
And oh look, the definition has changed. Imagine that!
"Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited
government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech,
press, assembly, and free markets"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
-Eddie Haskell
Transition Zone
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Wikipedia is just a hobby for most people.
Michael Ejercito
> On 2/10/2011 02 09, Topaz wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:58:19 -0800, Chom Noamsky
>
> >> Do you know that projection is a psychoanalytical term defined by
> >> Sigmund Freud? Did you know that along with Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud's
> >> books were burned by the Nazis? Did you know that some of Freud's
> >> students were connected to Trotsky? Why would the Nazis burn Karl Marx
> >> if they were promoting socialist ideals?
>
> > The Communists didn't do anything good for people. Therefore they were
> > not socialists. The National Socialists were the true socialists:
>
> > Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon...
>
> You're just a mindless automaton, Toothpaste. You are incapable of
> thought. You can only do what you're programmed to do.
Auschwitz.
Michael
per...@3web.com
'And the bottom line is a that a small group of people control both
the
government and business to line their pockets and control everyone
else.'
That's oligarchy. Socialism aims to line the pockets of the people.
Not the Kochs.
Chom Noamsky
> Actually, it's NOT !
> Instead of taking over the corporations, fascism just controls them
> absolutely through regulations and laws to push the socialist agenda
> The recent case of Fannie and Freddie Mae is a classic example of a
> corporate entity aloowed to behave against the public interest to push
> the socialist agenda of the Democrats
F & F are both classic examples of government loading up the public with
liabilities for the sake of facilitating private industry. Freddie Mac
was established in its most recent form under Nixon back in 1970.
Government backed guarantees mean industry can take risks and gamble
because it knows if the shit hits the fan the taxpayer is on the hook
for bailing them out. Anyone with a little more than superficial
knowledge knows that Republican administrations are responsible for the
vast majority of these government backed guarantees, whether they be for
the auto industry, agriculture, or the financial sector. Privatize the
profit, socialize the risk - neo-conservatism in a nutshell.
Eddie Haskell
"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b34e5c6c-8bdf-460f...@n2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 10, 12:24 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <th...@bnhhyut.com> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
> Wikipedia is just a hobby for most people.
You lose again.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"auda...@hotmail.com" <per...@3web.com> wrote in message
news:d38fa765-ff47-403c...@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Utter horse shit and fascist DNC propaganda. Fascism is government control
of business while socialism is government ownership of business. Both
accomplish the same ends and are two sides of the same coin. The reason the
DNC tells you that fascism is corporate control of government is so they can
implement their fascist designs right up under your stupid nose, all the
while making you think they are saving you from it.
Don't be a fool, fool.
""There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and
unjustified rate increases,'' Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and
Human Services, said in a letter to the insurance lobby."
""Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium
hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers
with basic protections,'' Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors could be
excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the
law. They would lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million
people nationwide."
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,
forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry.
Fascism: a system of government characterized by strong, often dictatorial
control of political and economic affairs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wzNUZVv0A0
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
> On 2/10/2011 7:07 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's NOT !
>> Instead of taking over the corporations, fascism just controls them
>> absolutely through regulations and laws to push the socialist agenda
>> The recent case of Fannie and Freddie Mae is a classic example of a
>> corporate entity aloowed to behave against the public interest to push
>> the socialist agenda of the Democrats
>
> F & F are both classic examples of government loading up the public with
> liabilities for the sake of facilitating private industry. Freddie Mac
> was established in its most recent form under Nixon back in 1970.
> Government backed guarantees mean industry can take risks and gamble
> because it knows if the shit hits the fan the taxpayer is on the hook for
> bailing them out. Anyone with a little more than superficial knowledge
> knows that Republican administrations are responsible for the vast
> majority of these government backed guarantees, whether they be for the
> auto industry, agriculture, or the financial sector. Privatize the
> profit, socialize the risk - neo-conservatism in a nutshell.
You are out of your mind, Chumpsky. It was the democrat's mandating that
Fannie and Freddie encourage bank and lending institutions to make risky
loans that caused the financial crisis. Yet again we see democrat PC
wreaking havoc on our nation.
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
"Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is
resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more
loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
"McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie"
"Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS
learned from the letter shown in full text below."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
Unlike Bush and McCain, as senator, Obama did nothing, other than earn the
distinction of becoming the second largest recipient of F&F contributions in
the entire congress, even in his short stint there.
Bill Clinton himself said it best:
"I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting
any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to
put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-Bill Clinton
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Eddie Haskell
> On 2/8/2011 12:58 PM, Phil wrote:
>> A far right conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
>> or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
>> right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
>> individual freedom and very
>> low taxes.
>
> The Nazis capitalist credentials:
>
> "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
Now, Chumpsky, haven't we been over this? That was the chief difference the
nazi's had with Marxist style socialism. They still believe in private
property, but they believed in both state CONTROL of private property and
business along with straight government ownership of the means of
production. Two sides of the same coin and accomplish the same ends. Kinda
like Hussein's crony capitalism where if you play ball you get rewarded
while you don't you get punished. Handing out healthcare wavers to is
cronies for example.
> The Nazis Christian credentials:
>
> "God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and
> unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany." -
> Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
They believed that Hitler was the savor and that dovetails with Christian
conservatives who believe that Jesus is the savor? Now really, Chumpsky,
have you no shame?
> Children, can you say "FAR RIGHT CONSERVATIVE".
What we can say is "fascist propaganda."
Thanks for the demonstration, Chumpsky.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/18/sen-rockefeller-wishes-fcc-shut-fox-news/
http://espanol.video.yahoo.com/watch/40150/930729
""There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and
unjustified rate increases,'' Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and
Human Services, said in a letter to the insurance lobby."
""Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium
hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers
with basic protections,'' Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors could be
excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the
law. They would lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million
people nationwide."
Fascism: a system of government characterized by strong, often dictatorial
control of political and economic affairs
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=fascism&matchtype=exact
Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power,
forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry,
commerce, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fascism
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
> Socialism aims to line the pockets of the people.
Hahahahahaha!!
I mean. Goddamn..
Bah hahahahaha!!!
-Eddie Haskell
SaPeIsMa
# 'And the bottom line is a that a small group of people control both
# the
# government and business to line their pockets and control everyone
# else.'
# That's oligarchy. Socialism aims to line the pockets of the people.
# Not the Kochs.
Too bad that history shows that any turn into socialism turns into
despotism.
And NO people EVER got their pockets "lined" by socialists, unless they were
part of the power elite
SilentOtto
> "SilentOtto" <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a10b8513-16a7-4e60...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 10:00 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "audax...@hotmail.com" <perm...@3web.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:62388905-9018-48ee...@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 8, 3:58 pm, Phil <clayno...@gmail.com> wrote:> A far right
> > conservative today is actually a laissz-faire, classical,
> > > or 19th- century liberal, who were sometimes called Whigs. These far
> > > right people (genuine liberals) believed in small government,
> > > individual freedom and very
> > > low taxes.
>
> > > The following blog describes Hilter's real ideology--socialism
>
> > >http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
>
> > #
> > # Calling Hitler socialist makes as much sense as saying that the USSR
> > # was run by Republicans because their name is in the country's title.
> > # Ask Henry Ford what kind of socialist Hitler was. Oh, he's dead.
> > # Well, ask the current Krupps, or the Siemenses...
>
> > <YAWN>
> > More stupid sophistry.
> > Sophistry is when some rightard tries to redefine the entire political
> > spectrum so he can place the Nazis on the left.
> > You never did provide an example of a right wing government
>
> The United States as envisioned by the founders.
Not according to SaPelsMa's definiton, rightard..
The only real right wing government is anarchy.
All others are just forms of socialism.
Heh heh....
Rightards...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
David Johnston
die Haskell
>
> #
> # fascism/corporatism is the reverse of socialism.
> #
>
> Actually, it's NOT !
> Instead of taking over the corporations, fascism just controls them
> absolutely through regulations and laws to push the socialist agenda
The socialist agenda consists of taking over the corporations or
eliminating them. If you aren't doing that you aren't a socialist.
Buster Norris
Topaz
wrote:
>You're just a mindless automaton, Toothpaste. You are incapable of
>thought.
I don't write to shit people.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Topaz
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 H�ss 'confession'
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz
commandant Rudolf H�ss 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." H�ss
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 H�ss
"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 H�ss "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 H�ss 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)
Topaz
SCHWERIN, GUSTLOFF'S FUNERAL
SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936
. . . BEHIND every murder stood the same power which is responsible
for this murder; behind these harmless insignificant fellow-countrymen
who were instigated and incited to crime stands the hate-filled power
of our Jewish foe, a foe to whom we had done no harm, but who none the
less sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave -
the foe who is responsible for all the misfortune that fell upon us in
1918, for all the misfortune which plagued Germany in the years that
followed. Those members of the Party and honorable comrades of ours
all fell, and the same fate was planned for others: many hundreds
survived as cripples or severely wounded, blinded or lamed; more than
40,000 others were injured. And among them were so many loyal folk
whom we all knew and who were near and dear to us, of whom we were
sure that they could never do any harm to anyone, that they had never
done any harm to anyone, whose only crime was that they devoted
themselves to the cause of Germany.
In the ranks of those whose lives were thus sacrificed there stood
also Horst Wessel, the singer who gave to the Movement its song, never
dreaming that he would join those spirits who march and have marched
with us.
And now on foreign soil National Socialism has gained its first
conscious martyr - a man who did nothing save to enter the lists for
Germany which is not only his sacred right but his duty in this world:
a man who did nothing save remember his homeland and pledge himself to
her in loyalty. He, too, was murdered, just like so many others. Even
at the time when on January 30 three years ago we had come into power,
precisely the same things happened in Germany, at Frankfort on the
Oder, at Köpenick, and again at Brunswick. The procedure was always
the same: a few men come and call someone out of his house and then
stab or shoot him down.
That is no chance: it is the same guiding hand which organized these
crimes and purposes to do so again. Now for the first time one who is
responsible for these acts has appeared in his own person. For the
first time he employs no harmless German fellow-countryman. It is a
title to fame for Switzerland, as it is for our own Germans in
Switzerland, that no one let himself be hired to do this deed so that
for the first time the spiritual begetter of the act must himself
perform the act. So our comrade has fallen a victim to that power
which wages a fanatical warfare not only against our German people but
against every free, autonomous, and independent people. We understand
the challenge to battle and we take up the gage! My dear comrade! You
have not fallen in vain!
Topaz
by Richard A. Widmann
In his recently published book, Why People Believe Weird Things,
Skeptic editor Michael Shermer recounts an exchange from the Phil
Donahue show. On that particular episode, CODOH director Bradley Smith
stated, "It [is] a lie that Germans cooked Jews to make soap from
them." Shermer, who is skeptical of many things, but generally a
believer in the Holocaust story, replied, "No, not a lie. It's a
mistake."
For some the tales of vicious Germans manufacturing Jews into bars
of soap and lampshades are indeed a lie, for others, like Shermer,
they are the products of innocent mistakes; for still others, the
stories remain an unassailable truth. In fact, these propaganda lies
have been dispelled many times, but continue to be repeated frequently
in establishment sources. It is no wonder that many people still
believe these horror stories.
General Lucius Clay, the military governor of the US zone of
occupied Germany, explained the lampshade story, "Well, it turned out
actually that it was goat flesh [sic --clearly the general meant
skin]. But at the trial [of Ilse Koch] it was still human flesh."
(Interview with Lucius Clay, 1976, Official Proceeding of the George
C. Marshall Research Foundation Quoted in M. Weber, "Buchenwald:
Legend and Reality," The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87
7(4), pp. 406-407.)
In regard to the human soap story, darling of the establishment
media and virulent anti-revisionist Deborah Lipstadt noted in 1981
"The fact is that the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that
matter anyone else, for the production of soap." ("Nazi Soap Rumor
During World War II," Los Angeles Times, May 16, 1981, p II/2.)
Michael Berenbaum, former director of the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum, now supervising Steven Spielberg's taxpayer-funded
Holocaust remembrance project, admitted in 1994, "there is no
evidence, despite widespread reports, that human fat was used for
soap. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tested several bars
of soap reported to be composed of human fat but no such fat was
found." (Y. Gutman, M. Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1994, p.80.)
One would clearly think that the case is closed, and that further
repetition of these propaganda stories would constitute nothing more
(and nothing less!) than arrant anti-German bigotry.
Still, the lies persist. On May 10, 1997 the New York Times ran an
article entitled, "Holocaust Collection Is Educator for Young." The
story concerns Milton Kohn, the owner of the world's "largest private
collection of Holocaust memorabilia." Kohn wanders the world repeating
anti-German hate stories to children. Part of his traveling collection
includes an alleged "bar of soap rendered from human fat [which] was
bought from a third party in Eastern Europe in 1968." Surely the New
York Times, which prides itself on reporting "all the news that's fit
to print," is aware that the soap story has been discredited.
The month of May also saw a revival of the hateful story of human
lampshades. In a mailing from Time-Life Video designed to hawk their
"World at War" series of videos, the advertisement reads: "More than
60 million people were shot, hanged, bombed, starved, gassed, frozen
or drowned. Nazis turned humans into lampshades... Now you can see
what hell is really like in the most definitive war footage you can
find today!"
Obviously, anti-German hatred still sells. Those who profit from
spreading these hateful lies should be called to account. It's up to
those with a sense of justice and respect for the truth to let the
offenders know that countenancing, let alone spreading, such lies
can't and won't be tolerated.
New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
Time Life Video
1450 E. Parham Road
Richmond, VA 23286-4257
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth,
he will either quit being mistaken or cease being honest.
Topaz
"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"
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
"Free marketers fancy themselves to be rational, calculating beasts.
In reality, their adoration of the market is essentially religious.
They believe that it will solve all economic ills, if not
immediately, then in the medium to long term. Armed with this supposed
objective truth, they proselytize about the moral evils and
inefficiencies of public service and the wondrous efficiency and
ethical outcomes of private enterprise regardless of the practical
effects of their policies or the frequent misbehaviour of those in
command of large private companies. Their approach is essentially that
of the religious believer. They recite their economic catechism
sublime in the concrete of their ignorance."
RH
Topaz
The term "Corporatism" derives from Catholic doctrine and has nothing
to do with corporations or capitalism.
Corporatism was derived as a substitute for Marxism, a third way, so
to speak. Corporatists are hardly pro-big-business and anti-labor.
Chas
corporatism
"All those engaged in a common enterprise, particularly as a means of
making a living, have a common interest and should deal with
government through their leaders as, for example, educational workers,
or workers in agriculture, rather than 'horizontally' as laborers,
clerical workers, managers, and so on."
Source:
David Miller et al., eds, The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political
Thought (Oxford, 1987)
Of course Mussolini did not mean that corporations as in the USA
should have more power or profits.
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 efficiency and, as such, were rewarded with
great success. For instance, the incidence of tuberculosis dropped
dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20% (Gregor,
p. 259).
"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
Franklin Roosevelt did some things to help people. But he didn't
really upset the money bag parasites who rule over us. Only Hitler did
that.
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty
of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people,
demanding that Germans repay every nation's cost of the (First World)
war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in
Germany.
Jewish currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet,
precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A
wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of
bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms
were lost to Jewish speculators and private banks. Germans lived in
hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of
the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and
businesses. On top of all this came a global depression. Germany had
no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international Jewish
bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At
that point, the German government thwarted the international Jewish
banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by
declaring a global economic boycott of Germany.
Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public
works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and
private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals,
and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no
longer came from the private international Jewish bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion
units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German
government issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury
Certificates. In this way, the National Socialists put people to
work.
Under the National Socialists, Germany's money wasn't backed by gold.
It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the
government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we require the
equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." Workers
spent those Certificates on on other people's goods and services, thus
creating more jobs for more people. In this way, the German people
climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the Jew bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and
Germany was back on it's feet. It had a solid, stable currency with
no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the US
and other Western countries were still out of work. Within five
years, Germany went from being the poorest nation in Europe to the
richest!
Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the global
boycott by Jew-owned enterprises, and the denial of foreign credit by
Jew-owned banks. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment
and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system
that cut the Jew bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since
barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits.
Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several
monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive
superhighway. This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with
the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory,
which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned
by a private and secretive banking cartel - such as the Federal
Reserve, or the European Central Bank - rather than issued by the
government for the benefit of the people.
In "Billions For The Bankers, Debts For The People" (1984), Shelton
Emry commented:
"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which
accounts for Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world
power in five years. The German government financed its entire
operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took
the entire Capitalist and Communist worlds to destroy the German
revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Jewish
bankers."