Ku Klux Klan / American Nazi Party Refuses To Endorse Obama - Sides With Fascist Republicans
ViperSpit
It looks like the Klan and the American Nazi party are lined up with David
Duke and his Republican buddies against Obama. What a shock!
Most economists now, including Republican Thomas Sowell say that the reason
why the Bush recession is so bad and unemployment is so high is because lazy
white trash Republicans refuse to look for work and prefer to hang out with
their Klan / Nazi buddies instead. That's why the red states are sucking
the federal government dry, leeching off the blue states.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>It looks like the Klan and the American Nazi party are lined up with David
>Duke and his Republican buddies against Obama. What a shock!
Ah, the Klan- that notorious extension of the Democratic Party.
The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans
of the Confederate Army. Groups spread throughout the South.
Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of
the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by
assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white
Republicans.
In an 1868 newspaper interview, [Nathan Bedford]Forrest stated
that the Klan's primary opposition was to the Loyal Leagues,
Republican state governments, people like Tennessee governor
Brownlow and other carpetbaggers and scalawags. He argued
that many southerners believed that blacks were voting for
the Republican Party because they were being hoodwinked by
the Loyal Leagues.(-Cincinnati 'Commercial', August 28, 1868,
quoted in Wade 1987.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anti-kkk-cartoon.jpg
Cartoon from 1868, which accuses the Democratic party
presidential candidates of relying on support from Ku Klux
Klan members who were Confederate traitors in 1864
Yes, you liberals have quite the credentials in the hate department,
don't you?
______
>... if you mention a 400-pound welfare broodmare, Lee automatically
>assumes you mean a BLACK 400-pound welfare broodmare!
"Sure I do." - Lee Harrison 28 May 2003
Topaz
Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
after the heading Ku Klux Klan:
"Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
measures of the United States Congress"
"The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
white women by black men"
"The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:
to protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows
and orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white
race in life, honour and property from the encroachments of the
blacks"
"To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious
fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen
covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for
eyes"
"the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by
giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order,
replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the
worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws
of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under
the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves."
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
ObamaBinLyin
too much tv for the libs. if it ain't on tv, they don't know of it.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
> Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
>after the heading Ku Klux Klan:
We already know all we need to know about those glue-sniffing
assholes, thanks.
Iarnrod
wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns ViperSpit <vs...@rr.com> wrote:
>
> >It looks like the Klan and the American Nazi party are lined up with David
> >Duke and his Republican buddies against Obama. What a shock!
>
> Ah, the Klan- that notorious extension of the Democratic Party.
>
> The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans
> of the Confederate Army. Groups spread throughout the South.
> Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of
> the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by
> assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white
> Republicans.
>
> In an 1868 newspaper interview, [Nathan Bedford]Forrest stated
> that the Klan's primary opposition was to the Loyal Leagues,
> Republican state governments, people like Tennessee governor
> Brownlow and other carpetbaggers and scalawags. He argued
> that many southerners believed that blacks were voting for
> the Republican Party because they were being hoodwinked by
> the Loyal Leagues.(-Cincinnati 'Commercial', August 28, 1868,
> quoted in Wade 1987.)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anti-kkk-cartoon.jpg
> Cartoon from 1868, which accuses the Democratic party
> presidential candidates of relying on support from Ku Klux
> Klan members who were Confederate traitors in 1864
>
> Yes, you liberals have quite the credentials in the hate department,
> don't you?
The southern Democrats of Reconstruction through Jim Crow were not the
liberals of the day.
Republicans took over the Klan support in the 1948 Dixiecrat-
through-1964-"Vote Against the Civil Rights Act" transformation when
the modern Democratic Party emerged to repudiate racism while GOP
embraced it.
History is not static.
ObamaBinLyin
Rights Act over a filibuster by algore.
Kent Finnell
news:EdsXl.52683$b9.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
That was Albert Gore Sr., not the leader of the Global
Warming Cult, Pope Al Gore.
--
Vote Freedom First
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
ObamaBinLyin
are referring to.
Iarnrod
Listen again, fuzznuts: History is not static. The GOP that freed the
slaves isn't the same GOP of today. You need to read some history.
Kent Finnell
Not here in Tennessee when Sr. was still alive and engaged
in politics. It was Albert (Sr.) and Al Jr. (sometimes
Prince Albert). Sr. got his ass thoroughly trounced, Al Jr.
rose through the ranks, became a national candidate
(forgetting all Tennessee values) and became Algore as B.
Clinton's lackey.
But it was a good thing that LBJ didn't depend on Albert
Gore Sr. to pass the Civil Rights Act.
Topaz
Exposing the Real Racists
Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book
Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been sold
worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian Duma (parliament).
Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.
If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr.
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-
'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a
quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative
years... I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted
a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a
foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught
the superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.
'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'
This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.
Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.
Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.
In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.
Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.
Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.
Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.
SMEARS BACKFIRED
Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.
David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.
When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!
David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.
ABSOLVES SOME JEWS
The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.
Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.
How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an
'anti-Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In
very effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called
'anti-Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or
'anti-Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem
sects. But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important
leaders of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well
wind up in prison for 'hate speech'.
One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.
While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.
INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT
In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled
'anti-Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define
that term.
In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.
Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-
'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'
With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.
ON ISRAELI TERROR
Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.
Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.
Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.
In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.
It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.
After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."
Topaz
"There are various names for the ideology of the elite. Some call it
"political correctness." Others call it "Cultural Marxism." But the
labels don't matter as long as one understands what is going on: the
ruling elites are waging a cultural and racial war against Western
values, Western civilization, and particularly Western man, i.e., the
white man. In the name of the feel-good mantras of diversity and
multiculturalism, all the values of traditional white civilization
have been declared bad and everything opposed to them declared good.
Every idea, attitude, and institution that protects the white race and
promotes its continued existence is being destroyed, as a precondition
for the physical destruction of the race itself. No arena of life is
spared this agenda's icy grip. Every movie, television show, news
story, book, and sermon must advance it, under the watchful eye of an
army of censors and snitches demanding unyielding fidelity to the
agenda. No argument or evidence is allowed to challenge it."
J.B. Cash
Topaz
Portugal was once a great nation. It might have been the greatest
nation on earth at one time. But now it is almost like a third world
country. What happened? Race-mixing is what happened. They let a lot
of Black people in and of course the result was racial inter-marriage.
Now the Portuguese people are not as White as they were. We need to
preserve the White race. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developments and discoveries, are the products of the
creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
civilization is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish,
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
grave."
"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on
the blood."
"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science
and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact
fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded
a superior type of humanity"
"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
native Japanese culture, although this characterizes the external
features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the
real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous
scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is
to say, of Aryan peoples."
"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a
people is only an effect of the change that had modified its racial
substance."
"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and Negroid all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized
future for our humanity would be lost forever."
"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."
"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if
the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should
disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual
needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear."
"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded as
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined
by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only
by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing
this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer
insight"
"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the
State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no
more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquility, so that
everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high
mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity
which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>Exposing the Real Racists
Topaz.
There, THAT was easy!
Topaz
All liberals have is meaningless buzz words. They call people racists.
Whatever. They don't have anything meaningful to say.
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
Tim Miller
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:57:50 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In talk.politics.guns Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Exposing the Real Racists
>> Topaz.
>>
>> There, THAT was easy!
>
> All liberals have is meaningless buzz words. They call people racists.
> Whatever. They don't have anything meaningful to say.
>
So, you're a liberal?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:57:50 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Exposing the Real Racists
>>
>>Topaz.
>>
>>There, THAT was easy!
>
>All liberals have is meaningless buzz words.
All Topaz has are reams of hate-speech from which he cut and pastes.
Note that Topaz rarely if ever responds with his own words.
Why?
Because he's a nazi drone. He's not paid to think. He can only repeat
what others tell him to say. Indicative of an incomplete education and
exposure to the real world, Topaz leads a sheltered life under the
wing of the plucked nazi bird.
_______________
"'Who the half-wit who gave such idiotic orders?' I pointed out to
[Hitler] that it was he himself who had done so. The minutes were
brought and read aloud. After a few sentences Hitler broke off
reading."
- Panzer Leader, General Heinz Guderian
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c7fz64
ObamaBinLyin
algore.
Kent Finnell
"ObamaBinLyin" <te...@prompter.fed> wrote in message
Bull. I'm a native Tennessean. I've been here 68 years and
counting. Until Albert Sr. rode that white horse across the
TV screen in his last and failed re-election campaign, he
was respectfully called Senator Gore or at worst Al Gore
(two distinct words). Albert Gore Jr. became Algore (one
word, a play on the horror movie mad scientists' assistant
Igor) when Clinton was dubbed Count Taxcula by Limbaugh.
Albert Gore Sr. became a liberal when it became politically
expedient. Jr. did the same. Both were rejected when the
average voter in Tennessee caught on.
--
Security, like liberty, has to be won and re-won many times
...
Linus from Charles Schulz's Peanuts 1958
From the Music City USA
Kent Finnell
Iarnrod
> not here in Tennessee. before algorejr was even born we called algore
> algore.
So then, you've ALWAYS been a nitwit?
ObamaBinLyin
what would you call algore? massa?
workisafou...@hushmail.com
You really need to read some history. If it wasn't for Everett
Dirksen, REPUBLICAN from Illinois, the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not
have been passed. It was his hard work, and the votes from more than
80% of House and Senate Republicans that got this bill passed.
On the other hand, we had Democrats such as Al Gore, Sr and Robert
Byrd who filibustered this bill.
JMcVie
I'd call him a very fat nit wit.
Topaz
<replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>So, you're a liberal?
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.
Topaz
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>All Topaz has are reams of hate-speech from which he cut and pastes.
>Note that Topaz rarely if ever responds with his own words.
>
>Why?
I don't write to shit people. Here are my policies:
1. I do not read rude posts.
2. I snip rude posts completely in my reply.
3. I don't give any personal reply to rude posts but only a cut and
paste.
4. I don't let rude posts get the last word.
>
>Because he's a nazi drone. He's not paid to think. He can only repeat
>what others tell him to say. Indicative of an incomplete education and
>exposure to the real world, Topaz leads a sheltered life under the
>wing of the plucked nazi bird.
>
I also ignore worthless rubbish with no political content.
Tim Miller
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:11:46 -0400, Tim Miller
> <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> So, you're a liberal?
>
>
> This web site explains
No answer except more "cut-n-paste" bullshit, eh?
Topaz
workisafou...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
>You really need to read some history. If it wasn't for Everett
>Dirksen, REPUBLICAN from Illinois, the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not
>have been passed.
by Frank Roman
and Debbie O'Connor
THE TRAGEDY unfolding before us is the planned disappearance of the
White race through the process of racial blending and replacement.
The corporate media and the bought politicians define any resistance
to this tragedy as "evil racism." According to them, we are not
allowed to resist the continuing obliteration of our race, but are
ordered to appreciate it.
Sometimes this situation can result in discouragement. But then, out
of nowhere, a sign appears that we are actually making a difference
for our people. The most recent sign of progress comes in the form
of a lady from middle Tennessee who contacted your host following
the April 15th Frankly Speaking broadcast entitled "Girls and Women:
Stay True to Yourselves." As a wonderful postscript to that
well-received program I am presenting to you the thoughts and
insights of another racially aware woman, Debbie O'Connor:
"Hello ladies. My name is Debbie O'Connor. I am a mother and a
grandmother. I reside in middle Tennessee and I have a message for
you, woman to woman. I want to start by saying I am very grateful
for National Vanguard's work; and for Frank Roman allowing me to
speak with you about a subject that is of great concern to me and
ought to be important to you.
"First, I was raised in the South and taught to respect everyone who
in turn respected me regardless of their race. I was taught that
needless conflict should not be a way of life for me or anyone else
with good sense. Secondly, I was taught not to cross any racial
lines by dating or becoming involved with men who were not White. As
I matured, I came to cherish the normal gravitation toward my own
race that Nature had intended. Those were different times we lived
in and it went without saying that racial mixing for White women was
out of the question-and I passed that way of life on to my children.
"Compared to what your television, some of your peers, and the
schools tell you this sounds 'outdated' and 'stuffy.' But when you
consider what racial mixing does in the long term it begins to make
more sense. Barely a day goes by I do not see young White girls and
grown White women with mixed race children; children that have no
true racial identity. This, ladies, is a deviation from Nature-
because it kills your valuable European bloodline.
"Deep down inside your maternal soul, you know this is wrong.
"Do you really want your daughter or granddaughter to come home from
the hospital with a mixed race baby that will never be accepted by
its peers of either race? After all, a Black couple can no more give
birth to a White baby than a White couple can give birth to a Black
baby. The reason is because each race was created within a divine
plan; to fulfill its own destiny as only that race is capable of
doing. This is a law of Nature.
"Too many among the present generation of young Whites are
committing racial suicide. I am deeply saddened to see White women
and mothers denying their own maternal instincts for racial survival.
"Consider this: Deep within your womanly intuition, do you honestly
believe that the precious White child with which you have been
blessed is literally no different than a non-White child? Do you
really believe it is a good thing to allow a White child's physical
and spiritual being to eventually merge into an
African-Mexican-Third-World mass?
"Like my friend, National Vanguard's Frank Roman, once said: 'What
could possibly be uplifting about biracial children, loss of
identity, and the corruption of two distinct gene pools?'
"Ladies, even as we speak, census data show that 45 percent of
children under age five are now from a racial 'minority.' And
non-Whites are taught by their parents to honor their race-while
White children are not. Unless something is done now the future of
White children is in terrible danger.
"Are you-by your words, your acts, or your silence-teaching
your child that White identity and White heritage are trivial? To
all the women who can hear me, remember: There is a heavy
responsibility that goes along with being a White mother. It has
nothing to do with 'hate.' It has everything to do with nurturing
your child, helping your child reach his or her true destiny, and
continuing our very identity into a future that will be so much
better with you and your child in it."
The world is indeed a much better place with people like Debbie
O'Connor in it. And our race is blessed as she continues to uphold
the very essence of morality and honor inherent in our people.
If more White parents would direct their children to the upward
path, teaching them that racial self-determination is the highest
value of all, the very pinnacle of morality-then, and only then,
will our people have a future: not only surviving, but flourishing
as the rightful heirs of their own destiny.
Iarnrod
I never understood the stupid kooks who insisted on saying "algore"
like that was some witty gotcha. Such stupid childishness is why GOP
goons were thrown ot on their asses the last two cycles. It's quite
possible no republican candidate will ever be elected to anything
again, thanks to you knuckledraggers.
I would call him Al Gore, or Mr. Vice President.
Iarnrod
Oh the fuckin' IRONY of YOU trying to tell ME to read history!! When
you're the one thinking it's still 1860 or even 1960.
> If it wasn't for Everett
> Dirksen, REPUBLICAN from Illinois, the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not
> have been passed. It was his hard work, and the votes from more than
> 80% of House and Senate Republicans that got this bill passed.
It helped lose Barry Goldwater the election, douchebag. It led to
Nixon and the GOP recruiting all the old southern Dem racists into the
new racist Republican Party and the Dems became associated with the
struggle for civil rights. This is all recent history that I LIVED
THROUGH, you moron. YOU need to read some history. We aren't talking
about the FACT that southern Dems WERE TRULY the racists of the day...
they WERE, and when the Dem Party abandoned them nationally they were
sucked up by Nixon and Mitchell's "Southern Strategy" to become a GOP
lock. FACT.
> On the other hand, we had Democrats such as Al Gore, Sr and Robert
> Byrd who filibustered this bill.
In 19 fuckin' **64**
Like I have been trying to pound into your pea sized brain, that is
ancient history, dear.
Deal with TODAY.
History is not static.
Iarnrod
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:47:10 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> >All Topaz has are reams of hate-speech from which he cut and pastes.
> >Note that Topaz rarely if ever responds with his own words.
>
> >Why?
>
> I don't write to shit people. Here are my policies:
>
> 1. I do not read rude posts.
>
> 2. I snip rude posts completely in my reply.
>
> 3. I don't give any personal reply to rude posts but only a cut and
> paste.
>
> 4. I don't let rude posts get the last word.
Why do you MAKE rude posts then?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:47:10 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>All Topaz has are reams of hate-speech from which he cut and pastes.
>>Note that Topaz rarely if ever responds with his own words.
>>
>>Why?
>
> I don't write to shit people. Here are my policies:
TRANSLATION: If a response required Topaz to actually think, he won't
respond.
>1. I do not read rude posts.
TRANSLATION: Topaz won't respond to any posts requiring him to think
unless his handler is close by, or his How & Why Wonder Book of Hitler
Quotes is close at hand.
>2. I snip rude posts completely in my reply.
TRANSLATION: Anything that proves him wrong will be snipped.
>3. I don't give any personal reply to rude posts but only a cut and
>paste.
TRANSLATION: ALL Topaz's posts are cut and paste. He can't think for
himself.
>4. I don't let rude posts get the last word.
TRANSLATION: Topaz is, like most nazi-wannabes, just a coward.
>
>>
>>Because he's a nazi drone. He's not paid to think. He can only repeat
>>what others tell him to say. Indicative of an incomplete education and
>>exposure to the real world, Topaz leads a sheltered life under the
>>wing of the plucked nazi bird.
>>
> I also ignore worthless rubbish with no political content.
TRANSLATION: Topaz only reads Hitler biographies and tracts from white
supremacist groups. Too much information might damage his fragile
mind.
Topaz
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honor which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
JMcVie
>
> Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
Why would any learned person want to read quotes from a retarted Nazi
that hated and killed his own kind?
Were you born an unwanted and ridiculed child, like Adolf was?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
Hitler's own origins are not noble or beyond reproach. Hitler comes
from illiterate peasant stock derived from a mixture of races, no pure
Germans among the, his father was illegitimate,was married three
times, and is said to have been conspicuous for sexual promiscuity.
Hitler's mother was a domestic servant. It is said that Hitler's
father's father was a Jew, and it is certain that his godfather was a
Jew; and that one of his sisters managed a restaurant for Jewish
students in Vienna and another was, for a time, the mistress of a Jew.
Hitler's appearance, when he wore a long beard during his outcast
Vienna days, was said to be very Jewish. Of these facts he is
evidently ashamed. unlike Napoleon, he has rejected all his relations.
As a partial explanation of his complex about impurity of blood it may
be said that as a boy of twelve, Hitler was caught engaging in some
sexual experiment with a little girl; and later he seems to have
developed syphilophobia, with a diffuse fear of contamination of the
blood through contact with a woman. It is almost certain that this
irrational dread was partly due to the association in his mind of
sexuality and excretion. He thought of sexual relations as something
exceedingly filthy.
Hitler himself is impotent. He is unmarried and his old acquaintances
say he is incapable of consummating the sexual act in a normal
fashion. This infirmity we must recognize as an instigation to
exorbitant cravings for superiority. Unable to demonstrate male power
before a woman, he is impelled to compensate by exhibiting unsurpassed
power before men in the world at large.
Hitler's dynamical pattern corresponds closely to that of paranoid
insanity. Indeed he has exhibited, at one time or another, all of the
classical symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia: hypersensitivity, panics
of anxiety, irrational jealousy, delusions of persecution, delusions
of omnipotence and messiahship.
-Analysis of The Personality of Adolf Hitler
Dr. Henry A. Murray
Harvard Psychological Clinic.
Abbie Hoffman
At the time, a little more true than today. Because after WWII, the
ZOG took over the world. And long before WWII, the Ersatz jews took over
the currencies of the world through their demonic practices of jewsury,
the very root of all evil. And weapons of mass destruction were all but
nonexistent before the end of WWII. Times are very different these days.
And the Ersatz zionists were infiltrating and manipulating every facet
of governments, schools, universities, militaries, banks, corporations,
media, families, minds, hearts, souls, bodies, everything you can name,
the jews have been sinking their devilish hooves into everything from
start to finish, top to bottom, cover to cover, cradle to grave.
The jews are not just "evil" as evil goes. The jews are the very name
and mind and body and soul of Evil itself incarnate into the flesh.
Everything the jew touches turns to genocide. The jews are antichrists.
Had Hitler realized this from the start, he would have had all jews
shot dead on sight and their filthy rotting corpses incinerated up the
smokestack. Without ever making any exception ever. Regardless of age,
position, wealth, influence, religion, sex, standing in government,
so called "royalty," illuminati, anything at all. Kill jews dead on
sight should have been his first and only order. Because once every jew
in the world is dead and every trace of their filthy works and memories
are destroyed and erased from the face of the earth, what else is left
of the jewish problem? Nothing at all I tell you. Nothing at all.
I'm tired of the fight. I only want to kill every jew in the world
dead and solve the jewish problem once and for all. No matter what the
cost. No matter what the collateral damage. End the human race for all
I care. Small price to pay for solving the jewish problem once and for
all. Why live on your knees, when you can die on your feet, "goys?"
The Ersatz jews are not "Gods." But they bleed and die like any "goy"
can bleed and die. The Rothschilds, the "Bilderbergs" and so forth,
politicians, lawyers, judges, military, police, corporate robber barons,
they bleed and die and burn in Hell for all eternity with little effort.
Anything and everything ZOG needs to be hunted down and killed. And
everything they ever built or touched must be destroyed. The new world
cannot know that the Ersatz jews ever existed. That means that even the
holy books must be destroyed. All books. Everything. Forgotten.
Force the jew pigs into world war three. That will settle everything.
And I really don't care if it kills everybody in the world. I only want
to make sure every jew in the world is dead. And the only way to make
that absolutely happen is by global nuclear and germ warfare holocaust.
It always comes down to that. That talk is worthless bullshit. Dead
rotting jew corpses is the only real enemy of the jews. Death, and the
Hell that follows with it. Dead rotting jew corpses.
The only good jew is a dead jew. Force the ZOG into world war three.
And be ready to sacrifice everything and everyone you know and love.
Because the ZOG will kill everything and everyone in its path, knowing
that its complete obliteration and eternal damnation is the inevitable
end for all antichrists. No matter what counterfeit names they go by.
The Juwes are
the men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing
-W.W. Gull
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
The question of Mr. Hitler's ancestry is dealt with at the beginning
of Ian Kershaw's 840+ page book entitled Hitler (Harmondsworth,
Penguin: 1998).
<begin quote at p. 7>
The third possibility is that Adolf Hitler's grandfather was Jewish.
Rumours to that effect circulated in Munich cafes in the early 1920s,
and were fostered by sensationalist journalism of the foreign press
during the 1930s. It was suggested that the name Huttler was Jewish,
'revealed' that he could be traced to a Jewish family called Hitler in
Bucharest, and even claimed that his father had been sired by Baron
Rothschild, in whose house in Vienna his grandmother had allegedly
spent
some time as a servant. But the most serious speculation about
Hitler's supposed Jewish background has occurred since the Second
World War and is directly traceable to the memoirs of the leading Nazi
lawyer and Governor General of Poland, Hans Frank, dictated in his
Nuremburg cell while awaiting the hangman...
Allegedly commissioned by Hitler to look into his family history,
Frank reportedly discovered that Maria Anna Shicklgruber had given
birth to her child while serving as a cook in the home of a Jewish
family called Grankenberger in Graz...
Frank's story gained wide circulation in the 1950s. But it simply does
not stand up. There was no Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz
during the 1880s. In fact, there were no Jews at all in the whole of
Styria at that time, since Jews were not permitted in that part of
Austria until the 1860s. A family named Frankenreiter did live there,
but was not Jewish . . . Hans Frank's memoirs, dictated at a time of
when he was waiting for the hangman and plainly undergoing a
psychological crisis, are full of inaccuracies and have to be used
with caution. With regard to the story of Hitler's grandfather,
whoever he was, he was not a Jew from Graz.
The only serious contenders for the paternity of Hitler's father
remain, therefore, Johann Georg Hiedler and Johann Nepomuk Hiedler (or
Huttler).
<end quote>
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>The question of Mr. Hitler's ancestry is dealt with at the beginning
>of Ian Kershaw's 840+ page book entitled Hitler (Harmondsworth,
>Penguin: 1998).
>
"Hitler has many weaknesses. There is a large feminine component in
his constitution. As a child he was frail and sickly, emotionally
dependent on his mother. He never did any manual work, never engaged
in athletics, was turned down as forever unfit for conscription in the
Austrian Army. Afraid of his father, his behavior was outwardly
submissive and later he was annoyingly subservient to his superior
officers. Four years in the Army, he never rose above the rank of
Corporal. At the end he broke down with a war neurosis, hysterical
blindness. Even lately, in all his glory, he suffers frequent
emotional collapses in which he yells and weeps. He has nightmares
from a bad conscience; and he has long spells when energy, confidence,
and the power of decision abandon him. Sexually, he is a full-fledged
masochist.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
>on December 10, 1940:
_______________
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
<SNIP>
>
> At the time, a little more true than today. Because after WWII, the
>ZOG took over the world.
Exactly. That's because you morons were too weak in the mind, and
someone had to do it. [chuckle]
[PLONK]
Topaz
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"'Who the half-wit who gave such idiotic orders?' I pointed out to
>[Hitler] that it was he himself who had done so. The minutes were
>brought and read aloud. After a few sentences Hitler broke off
>reading."
> - Panzer Leader, General Heinz Guderian
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/c7fz64
They put the same thing in the movie "Back to the Future 3" He says,
"What idiot told you to dress like that?" "You did doc". It may be
funny but it proves nothing at all.
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
Topaz
"He was born into humble circumstances, the son of an obscure civil
servant in a remote corner of a crumbling empire, yet his name
resounds throughout the world to this day.
He was rejected by the universities of his time for formal enrollment
in art and in architecture, and yet he erected mighty buildings and
monuments, and today a simple postcard that he drew in ink or charcoal
fetches staggering sums at auction.
He fought as a front line soldier through all four years of the
greatest war in history up to that time, never rising above the rank
of corporal, but he won both of his country's highest decorations for
bravery under fire and rose to command the mightiest armies on earth.
Almost unique in the history of his century, he was not a lawyer or an
aristocrat or a man of inherited wealth and privilege, but a man who
once earned his daily bread with the labor of his hands, and yet he
conquered politics and rose to the leadership of the most brilliant
and creative nation on earth. So that his people might travel across
the land he loved quickly and cheaply, he created a simple and sturdy
automobile still in use today, and a network of highways that still
spans Germany. His game and forestry laws are still in force, and are
praised by ecologists as a model of environmental protection. His
economic program received the sincerest form of flattery from the
loathsome Roosevelt, who stole it and copied it into the context of
the American Depression as his own.
Every man who ever met him personally, even those who became his
bitterest enemies, spoke of him forever afterwards with awe and
admiration. His courtesy and his gallantry toward women were
legendary. With his power and his prestige he could have had any woman
he wanted, but the woman he chose as his life's partner, and who
eventually died by his side, was a simple and humble daughter of the
people.
He did not drink. He did not smoke. He was a lifelong lover of animals
and children and was happiest in the company of toddlers rather than
statesmen and soldiers, and no one ever overheard him use a profane
word or tell a smutty joke. He lifted his people up from the mud of
defeat and despair and alien domination, and he died trying to do the
same for all of us.
To this day, his memory is kept green by the Aryan peoples of Germany
and the world, even though it means prison, and in some countries
death, to honor him or his legacy within the sight or hearing of the
tyrant. He has been slandered, vilified, lied about, cursed,
distorted, and damned every day since his death by the most powerful
and evil tyranny mankind has ever known, and yet his name and his
Symbol cannot be suppressed by force or by propaganda. As we begin
this new Millennium, his book is read and his name is on more lips
than ever before and his image and his strength fills the hearts of a
whole new generation of young Aryan men and women."
"When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
no longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks -
Then lend her your arm in support,
Escort her with happy pleasure.
The hour will come when, weeping, you
Must accompany her on her final walk.
And if she asks you something,
Then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her,
Not impatiently, but with gentle calm.
And if she cannot understand you properly
Explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour,
When her mouth asks for nothing more."
Those lines were written by Adolf Hitler, in 1923."
In the Thicket of the Forest at Artois
"It was in the thicket of the Artois Wood.
Deep in the trees, on blood-soaked ground,
Lay stretched a wounded German warrior,
And his cries rang out in the night.
In vain ... no echo answered his plea ...
Will he bleed to death like a beast,
That shot in the gut dies alone?
Then suddenly ...
Heavy steps approach from the right
He hears how they stamp on the forest floor ...
And new hope springs from his soul.
And now from the left ...
And now from both sides ...
Two men approach his miserable bed
A German it is, and a Frenchman.
And each watches the other with distrustful glance, And threatening
they aim their weapons.
The German warrior asks:
"What do you do here?"
"I was touched by the needy one's call for help."
"It's your enemy!"
"It is a man who suffers."
And both, wordless, lowered their weapons.
Then entwined their hands
And, with muscles tensed, carefully lifted
The wounded warrior, as if on a stretcher,
And carried him through the woods.
'Til they came to the German outposts.
"Now it is over. He will get good care."
And the Frenchman turns back toward the woods.
But the German grasps for his hand,
Looks, moved, into sorrow-dimmed eyes
And says to him with earnest foreboding:
"I know not what fate holds for us,
Which inscrutably rules in the stars.
Perhaps I shall fall, a victim of your bullet.
Maybe mine will fell you on the sand
For indifferent is the chance of battles.
Yet, however it may be and whatever may come:
We lived these sacred hours,
Where man found himself in man ...
And now, farewell! And God be with you!"
Adolf Hitler, 1916
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"He was born into humble circumstances, the son of an obscure civil
>servant in a remote corner of a crumbling empire, yet his name
>resounds throughout the world to this day.
"Hitler has many weaknesses. There is a large feminine component in
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:56:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"'Who the half-wit who gave such idiotic orders?' I pointed out to
>>[Hitler] that it was he himself who had done so. The minutes were
>>brought and read aloud. After a few sentences Hitler broke off
>>reading."
>> - Panzer Leader, General Heinz Guderian
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/c7fz64
>
> They put the same thing in the movie "Back to the Future 3" He says,
>"What idiot told you to dress like that?" "You did doc". It may be
>funny but it proves nothing at all.
It proves that Hitler HIMSELF recognized his orders were that of a
half-wit. That's what it proves.
It also makes you wonder about the people that admire a half-wit.
Hmmmmmmmm.
JMcVie
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:56:06 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"'Who the half-wit who gave such idiotic orders?' I pointed out to
>>[Hitler] that it was he himself who had done so. The minutes were
>>brought and read aloud. After a few sentences Hitler broke off
>>reading."
>> - Panzer Leader, General Heinz Guderian
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/c7fz64
>
>
> They put the same thing in the movie "Back to the Future 3" He says,
> "What idiot told you to dress like that?" "You did doc". It may be
> funny but it proves nothing at all.
>
>
> Here is part of Hitler's speech :Snip)
If Adolf was "all that" as you claim and live by, why did he commit
suicide, and lose all respect?
Why are NAZIS forbidden in Germany, and the ones that think they are
"nazi's" in the USA, all living in very cheap trailer parks with shaved
heads and tattoos?
Hitler had a nice head of thick black hair, and a huge "JEWSISH Like" nose.
Small little guy too.. about what.. 5'5"?
" Hitler was close to his mother, but had a troubled relationship with
his father, an authoritarian who frequently beat him. Years later, he
told his secretary: "I then resolved never again to cry when my father
whipped me."
Same thing with you, Topaz?
You just take it?
Iarnrod
> Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
> on December 10, 1940:
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Berlin Bunker on April 30, 1945:
"I am sorry, Eva, that my little pin prick wouldn't perform for you
since I only have one ball, but we must hurry and kill ourselves now
before the Russians get us. Here, suck on this little cyanide capsule,
it's about as big as my dick anyway. I an going to bite on this bullet
here and...." <<B-A-N-G!!>>
The world celebrated shortly thereafter.
Topaz
They put the same thing in the movie "Back to the Future 3" He says,
"What idiot told you to dress like that?" "You did doc". It may be
funny but it proves nothing at all.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of
the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it
or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through
their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been
provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for
existence.
"Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes
to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another
and one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true
in regard to the practical application of those inventions and
discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their
turn inventions also and consequently dependant on the creative
faculty of the individual. Even in purely theoretical work, which can
not be measured by a definite rule and is preliminary to all
subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the
individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the
majority organize or think; but always and in every case the
individual man, the person."
"Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to
prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the
contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that
ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the
principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of
creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This
common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to
rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and
in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should
rule who have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership."
"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
appearance only in the administration of the national community
especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
veritable decomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in
different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to
the persistent Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of
personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of
personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The
constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the
destructive principle of the Jews. They become the 'ferment of
decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sense, the
wreckers of human civilization.
"Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish
endeavor to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in
every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of
the masses. In politics the parliamentary form of government is the
expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it
everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest
governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the
trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the
employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry."
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand
the fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should
merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt
the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete
with Marxism on its own ground."
"The best constitution and the best form of government is that
which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position
of dominant importance and influence in the community."
Topaz
German leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the
allies were subhuman monsters:
Eyewitness account by Mrs. Leonora Geier (nee Cavoa, born Oct 22,
1925, Sao Paulo,
Brazil) to Dr. Trutz Foelsche, Ph.D
Deutsche Nationalzeitung, No. 17-65, p. 7:
"On the morning of February, 16, (1945) a Russian detachment
occupied the RAD (Reichsarbeitsdienst) camp Vilmsee near Neustettin.
The Commissar told me in good German language that the camp was
dissolved and that we, as a unit with uniforms (RAD - German Labour
Service, not military uniforms), would be transported to a collection
camp. Since I, as a Brazilian citizen, belong to an allied nation, he
asked me to take over as a leader of the transport that went to
Neustettin, into the yard of the former iron factory. We were about
500 girls (Maidens of the Reichsarbeitsdienst - German Labour
Service).
He said I could come into the orderly room, which I accepted.
Immediately he directed me to make no further contact with other
women, because they were members of an illegal army. On my response
that this what not true, he cut me off with the remark that I would be
shot immediately, if I would repeat in any form a similar statement.
"Suddenly I heard loud screams, and promptly five girls were brought
in by the two Red Armists. The Commissar ordered them to undress. When
they, in a sense of shame, refused to do so, he ordered me to undress
them and follow him with the girls. We walked through the yard to the
former factory kitchen, which was completely cleared out
except for some tables along the window wall. It was dreadfully cold
and the unfortunate girls trembled. In the huge tiled room several
Russians waited for us who were obviously making obscene remarks
because every word was followed by loud laughter.
The Commissar then directed me to watch how one makes sissies out of
'The Master Race'.
Now two Poles, clad in trousers only, entered the room. At their
sight the girls cried out.
Briskly, they seized the first of the two girls and bent her over with
her back over the edge of the table until her joints cracked. I almost
fainted when one of the men pulled his knife and cut off her right
breast in the presence of the other girls. I have never heard a
human being scream as desperately as this young woman. After this
'operation' both men stabbed her several times in the abdomen,
accompanied by the howling of the Russians.
The next girl cried for mercy, in vain, since she was exceptionally
pretty. I had the impression that the 'work' was carried out very
slowly. The other three girls were completely broken down, cried for
their mothers and begged for a speedy death, but also
fate them overtook.
The last of the girls was still half a child, with barely developed
breasts, one tore the flesh literally from her ribs until the white
bone appeared.
Again, five girls were brought in. This time, they had been selected
carefully. All were developed and pretty. When they saw the bodies of
their predecessors, they began to cry and scream. Weak as they were,
they tried to defend themselves but to no avail; the Poles became more
cruel every time. One of the girls, they cut open her womb and trunk
over the whole length; poured a can of machine oil into the mutilated
body and tried to set fire to it. Another was shot in the genitals by
a Russia, before they cut off her breasts.
A great howling began when someone brought a saw from a toolbox.
Now, using the saw, they set to work to the breasts of the girls to
pieces, which in a short period of time led to the floor being covered
with blood. A blood rage seized the Russians. Continuously
one of them brought more and more girls.
Like a red fog, I saw the gruesome happenings again and again and I
perceived the inhuman screaming at the torture of their breasts and
the load groaning at the mutilation of their private parts. When my
legs failed me I was forced into a chair. The Commissar persistently
watched me to make sure I was looking toward the torture scenes. In
fact, when I had to vomit, they even paused with their tortures. One
girl had not undressed completely, she may have been somewhat older
than the rest of the girls who were about 17-years old. One of the
torturers soaked her bra with oil and ignited it and, while she cried
out, another drove a thin iron rod into her vagina until it emerged at
her naval.
In the yard they liquidated entire groups of girls, after they had
selected the prettiest ones for the torture room. The air was filled
with the death cries of many hundreds of girls. But in view of what
happened here, the slaughter outside could be considered more humane.
It was a dreadful fact that not one of the girls brought into the
torture room lost here consciousness.
In their horror all were equal in their expressions. It was always
the same; the begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when their
breasts were cut and their genitals mutilated. Several times the
slaughter was interrupted to sweep out the blood and to clear away the
corpses.
That evening I sank into a severe nerve fever. From then on I lack
any recollection until the moment I awoke in a military hospital.
German troops had recaptured Neustettin temporarily, and had liberated
us. As I learned later, approximately 2,000 girls were murdered during
the first three days of the first round of Russian occupation."
Topaz
"While each man who took the field in 1914 and wore the honorable
field-grey uniform could be assured of general respect, he who put on
the arm-band of the National Socialist could be sure that he would be
ridiculed and taunted by all. That arm-band was no sign of honor: it
rested with the wearer to make it that."
"This struggle had not only demanded sacrifice in blood, but above all
inner sacrifices of the spirit. How many of you had to endure for long
years the life of outlaws in this Germany which none has loved more
than you did! Many of you had to pay the cost of this struggle with
the loss of your position and your daily bread. And for years you have
had ranged against you not only the brutal violence of the organized
mob, you have had against you, too, the authority of the State, the
ally of this mob. There hardly seemed any prospect that you could
succeed against this conspiracy of baseness, of unreason and of
power... and yet today Germany has in truth risen again."
Adolf Hitler
Topaz
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."
Iarnrod
> German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
Not really. They got their dishonor before their well-deserved measly
deaths, many by offing themselves in cowardly fear.
Klaus Schadenfreude
In view of his long service and the shortage of officers in the German
Army, the fact that Hitler never rose above the rank of corporal
aroused curiosity and was much discussed in the German Press before
1933. There is no evidence that Hitler ever applied or was eager for
promotion to the rank of non-commissioned officer, leave alone a
commission. Probably he impression of eccentricity which he continued
to give was no recommendation.
While not unpopular with his comrades, they felt he did not share
their interests or attitude to the war. He did not care about leave or
women. He was silent when the others grumbles about the time they had
to spend in the trenches or the hardships. Konrad Heiden, in his book
'Der Fuhrer," says 'We all cursed him and found him intolerable.'
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> They put the same thing in the movie "Back to the Future 3"
You said that before. You think repeating it over and over again
somehow gives it weight?
You're talking about a movie. I'm talking about real life. Do you know
the difference?
FACT: Hitler thought of himself as a half-wit. Then he killed himself.
_______________
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
And let's hope nazi leaders still do.
Klaus Schadenfreude
-Analysis of The Personality of Adolf Hitler
Topaz
Topaz
Here are some quotes from "With Hitler on the Road to Power" by Dr.
Otto Dietrich
The "Dritte Reich" stands firm. It rests on its foundations, on the
immortal values of the Nordic Race, and in the depth of Germany's
soul.
We call Adolf Hitler our "Leader" (Fuehrer), because that is what he
is. He united State and Nation in Germany.
Only the eye-witness, who has experienced day by day, at the side of
Adolf Hitler, the wave of love and enthusiasm which greets him from
every class of German, can realize that such ovations, so rare in the
life of statesmen, signify no artificial feeling, but genuine
affection.. Hundreds, thousands throng the streets and roads, and
surge toward his car.. The scenes which we witness day by day are
touching and heart-rending. They are not isolated examples, but occur
everywhere.
The history of the National Socialist Movement shall be handed down to
posterity as the epic of the resurrected German Nation.
With indomitable will and unprecedented perseverance, which no
reverse can dishearten, this previously unknown man of the people,
with a few faithful adherents, dared to pierce the lines of the
Marxist terror.. He knows; terror is not overcome by intellect, but by
terror.
Adolf Hitler was not permitted to speak in public. The party lacked
the most essential means. It's existence during the following years -
probably the most arduous of its life - was one long series of
persecutions, muzzling, and trickery. Whoever admitted National
Socialism, was banished from civil life, from the decadent bourgeoisie
and from the class-conscious workers. The mere suspicion of National
Socialism meant the loss of employment and bread, boycott and ruin of
business interests, the inevitable acceptance of misery.
Hundreds, thousands were imprisoned by the November State Government.
Throughout the streets raged bloodshed and scenes of Marxist terror.
All the powers of hell were let loose against the advancing young
movement.
After twelve years of inconceivably laborious preparation, the
N.S.D.A.P. felt strong enough to knock at the door of power in the
Reich
But strong elements of economic opposition were still prevalent, and
these he attacked at the beginning of 1932.
Even today, I can picture this meeting of prominent men. We came for
Godesberg, and drove up to the Park Hotel, amidst the hooting of the
Marxists. The room was over crowded. Huddled together, sat the chief
West German magnates. There were familiar and unfamiliar faces. Men in
the public eye , and those quiet , but no less influential powers,
who, moving behind the scenes, control the fate of economy by the soft
sounds issuing from their private offices- men said to bear a ledger
rather than a heart.
Joyful expectation brightened the faces of those already converted.
But the vast majority bore an air of superiority and cool reserve-
probably flattered that Hitler had approached them. Mere curiosity,
and general interest lured them to the meeting. They wanted to hear
Hitler speak. They had no intention of being converted; the came to
criticize, seeking confirmation of their own infallible opinion.
Our leader received a chilly ovation; he spoke from a slightly raised,
projecting balustrade, he hands resting lightly on the iron railing. I
sat, amongst the listeners, taking notes, and observing the effect of
his speech which lasted for over two hours. From world political
perspective and with cogent logic, out leader elucidated the relations
between economy and politics, their reciprocal effect, and their
results in Germany. He explained the cause of the situation , and
proposed the only possible remedy.
The general impression upon this group of most impassive listeners was
astounding. After an hour, their chilly reserve gave way to intense
interest. Hitler spoke of the titanic struggle of his political
warriors, needy and persecuted, but making every sacrifice, even that
of life, for their nation. He contrasted the German youth's unselfish
idealism, personified in National Socialism, and the noble character
of working-class followers, with the lack of comprehension, the
materialism, and the heavy guilt of the purely economically
established Bourgeoisie. He pricked their social conscience without
causing offence.
They began to flush, fixed their gaze upon out Leader's lips, and it
seemed as if their hearts were moved. He spoke to their very souls.
Faint, then thundering applause greeted Hitler at the conclusion of
his speech; he had won a battle.
The Jewish and Marxist Press lied boldly next day that Hitler had
feasted with the industrial magnates on champagne and lobsters.
Actually, a few minutes later, the night say us on the road again,
bent on fresh work.
Next day, Hitler addressed with equal success the Crefeld Silk
magnates in Godesberg. Later the national club in Hamburg. Everywhere,
the scene was the same.
Those were daring journeys, fraught with danger, through the very
strongholds of the Marxist potentates who were on the track of their
hated, sworn foe.
But Adolf Hitler fought his way through. The number-plate of his car
was smeared with oil and coated with dust- quite indiscernible.
Then we held our first meeting in Goerlitz, where the attendance
exceeded the hundred thousand figure. All the roads were crowed with
masses of people on foot, on bicycles, and in lorries, all with the
same destination.
Hitler spoke as the stars arose in the heavens, and amidst the flaring
torches.
Now the crowds recognized the luminous plane carrying our leader, who
had just devoted his time to them. Cheers broke out from a hundred
thousand throats, drowning even the thunder of our motors, whilst the
crowds brandished flaming torches in greeting.
We have experienced the following fact; In Germany, wherever economic
and moral distress was greatest, wherever things seemed most
intolerable, there, confidence in our leader was strongest, and
gripped all the people.
Wherever our leader approached, every man and woman came out. Crowds
lined the streets. Aged grandmothers, on whose distressed faces the
direst poverty was written, raised their arms in greeting. Wherever we
stopped, the women stretched out their children towards our leader.
There were tears of joy and emotion.
They used to meet upon the Platterhof. Adolf Hitler would often come
in the night fog to the Platterhof, to take counsel with his friends.
The "Conservative State Idea" appropriated our ideas. The most ancient
political mummies of the past suddenly appeared upon the scene, and,
without shame, claimed the credit for out previous successes.
The Youth stood by Hitler, because it knew that he personified the
Nation's Youth. From the beginning, our leader had valued most highly
the immense importance of Youth for the movement. Not the old
generation, but a rising generation, uncorrupted by the destructive
poison of the world ideas of the ruling classes, could bear the new
Germany upon its shoulders.
Finally, on 30th January, 1933, our leader made the short drive over
the Wilhelmsplatz to the Reichskanzler's Office. Amidst boundless
cheers. The seige was over, the fortress had fallen, the gates lay
open.
The political lie had played a prominent role in all epochs of
parliamentary history. But such accumulations of lies and defamations
as our opponents have hurled against the awakening young Germany in
the course of our 13 years' struggle have not been experienced.
What National Socialist's blood does not boil, if he recalls the rapid
fire of press lies, that witches Sabbath of infernal songs of hatred,
which burst upon the National Socialist Movement every day?
The activity of the Marxist Press against National Socialism, by means
of profligacy, unscrupulous lies and base agitation of the public,
stands unrivalled throughout the press of the whole world.
But this systematic lying campaign of our opponents was always the
best evidence of the moral weakness of their own position. The more
desperate their situation was, the more unscrupulous became their
press agitation.
The agitation of the Jewish-Marxist Press against the N.S.D.A.P., has
been such an essential ingredient of our opponents' struggle during
all these years, that we would be guilty of historical forgery if we
did not lay due stress upon this lying campaign in our description of
the events.
The National Socialist Party has re-united people and State, it has
restored the people to the State, and the State to the people. In this
way, an organism, complete within itself, and comprising every
function of the life of the community, was born from the Nation
itself, in the midst of a decadent people and a corrupt State.
In Nuremberg, the Party represented the German people and the German
State, before the eyes of the whole world. This was a more complete, a
more morally dignified, and a more imposing representation than the
State and Nation have ever previously enjoyed.
If proves the recognition that a new valuation of men, a valuation
based upon the laws of nature, is beginning to force its way through
from the hearts of the European Nations. It is about to overcome
Liberalism, and replace it by a new conception of the living
community.
The democratic, parliamentary Liberalism apodictically claimed for
itself the eternal title of the most purposeful and best form of
representation of the peoples rights. At last with its own eyes, the
Nation has recognized National Socialism as the organization of
naturally chosen leaders. National Socialism's achievements in the
fields of Socialism, Economy, Administration, and Reformation of the
Reich, speak for themselves. In one sweep, these leaders have
accomplished what dozens of previous parliamentary, democratic
governments vainly attempted in the most deplorable way.
Probably it is an act of justice and compensation, that the German
Nation, so sorely afflicted by the world-war, is chosen to lead the
way to a better future for the nations.
Tim Miller
> Here is part of Hitler's speech
You STILL can't answer WHY anyone would care...
Topaz
"In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the
past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to out work
and out action, to out judgment and our resolution, that He will
safeguard us from all false pride and from cowardly servility, that He
may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has
ordained for our people, and that He may ever give us the courage to
do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence,
before any danger."
Adolf Hitler
Iarnrod
> Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
> on December 10, 1940:
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Berlin Bunker on April 30, 1945:
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>Here is part of Hitler's speech
Hitler's a half-wit. Come on Topaz, you know that.....
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> Here are some quotes from "With Hitler on the Road to Power" by Dr.
>Otto Dietrich
Here's a quote about Hitler:
"Hitler has many weaknesses. There is a large feminine component in
his constitution. As a child he was frail and sickly, emotionally
dependent on his mother. He never did any manual work, never engaged
in athletics, was turned down as forever unfit for conscription in the
Austrian Army. Afraid of his father, his behavior was outwardly
submissive and later he was annoyingly subservient to his superior
officers. Four years in the Army, he never rose above the rank of
Corporal. At the end he broke down with a war neurosis, hysterical
blindness. Even lately, in all his glory, he suffers frequent
emotional collapses in which he yells and weeps. He has nightmares
from a bad conscience; and he has long spells when energy, confidence,
and the power of decision abandon him. Sexually, he is a full-fledged
masochist.
-Analysis of The Personality of Adolf Hitler
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the
>past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to out work
>and out action, to out judgment and our resolution, that He will
>safeguard us from all false pride and from cowardly servility, that He
>may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has
>ordained for our people, and that He may ever give us the courage to
>do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence,
>before any danger."
>Adolf Hitler
God never granted any of those things. That's because God knew Adolph
was defective, and allowed the Jews to smite him and his country.
You're next.
Topaz
<replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>You STILL can't answer WHY anyone would care...
The Jews made a movie called "The House on Carroll Street". As soon
as the movie begins you notice how White everyone is. It does look
like 1951. It looks great. The main actress is a blonde. It is the
good old days. It is the way America was meant to be. As Archie Bunker
says "Do you remember when, girls were girls and men were men?"
So why are the Hollywood Jews making a movie like this? Well you
soon find out that the "bad guys" in the movie are Nazis.
Look at America now. There are non-Whites and race-mixing
everywhere. Anyone can see Black neighborhoods and not safe and not
where you want to live. America is slowly turning into a third world
country.
The Nazis were fighting for the real America. They were fighting for
civilization.
The Jews make the movies and control the media. You can hardly go to
the movies now without seeing race-mixing and feminism. Nazis aren't
the enemy, Jews are.
Topaz
"We National Socialists have grown accustomed since our takeover in
1933 to the particular attention of the leading politicians of the
U.S.A. and of the international Jews who stand behind them. Our
defensive measures against international Jewry have aroused increasing
tirades against Germany in America. Sometimes it seemed as if it would
be impossible to increase the flood of hatred and lies...
After leading politicians such as the American Secretary of the
Interior Harold Ickes and Senator Pittman attacked the German
government in the foulest manner, President Roosevelt did even more in
his New Year address. He tried to persuade the American people that
world peace was not assured, and that it was the duty of the American
people to defend three vital principles: those of religion, democracy
and international good will. Roosevelt did not believe these
principles were threatened by Soviet Russia or Soviet Spain, rather by
authoritarian Germany and Italy.
Millions are dead in Soviet Russia and Spanish priests estimate that a
half million people have been murdered there only because of their
faith, but that is not important and proves nothing. The dead do not
trouble the American President's conscience, indeed they did not stop
him from being the single world statesman to congratulate the Soviet
Russian government on the anniversary of the Bolshevist Revolution. No
other statesman did this, which explains why no other statesman
received such praise from the Soviet press. The Soviet press praised
the "noble efforts of the great American statesman."
Roosevelt also ignored the murder of millions of people when it was
called to his attention by a letter from the former Spanish ambassador
in Great Britain, the Marquis de Merry del Wal. The ambassador told
Mr. Roosevelt the following:
Your country's press tells the world of Your Excellency's protests
against the "persecution of the Jews" in Germany. According to the
press, you are deeply distressed by these events. How is it then that
the murder and massacre of 400,000 defenseless men, women and children
in Spain has not resulted in the slightest distress on your part?
These unfortunate people did not die on the battlefields of a civil
war. They were torn from their homes and murdered in public not only
because of their political, but also their religious, beliefs. Their
murderers openly declared their goal of destroying the very
civilization that Your Excellency defends. They have intentionally
destroyed thousands of churches and monuments along with uncounted
works of art and private homes. They have torn the clothes from nuns
and revealed them to everyone's eyes. They raped women and looted to a
degree unknown in the annals of the Christian era.
Your own ambassador, Your Excellency, against all the laws, norms and
customs of international law, has been forced to live away from the
government to which he is accredited, since as he said his personal
security would otherwise be in danger. I further know, Your
Excellency, that you have received certain proof of my assertions, for
I have made efforts to ensure that you have received reports that
support what I have said. Despite that, Your Excellency, you complain
about events in Germany, events that cannot be compared with what is
happening in Spain-and you have not given even the slightest sign of
disapproval at the death of hundreds of thousands of people who have
18 million fellow believers who are among the best citizens of your
country, far more than the two million Jews.
These people have been murdered solely because of their beliefs. Mr.
Roosevelt however has never spoken of a threat to faith or religion.
But they were only believers in a Christian church, after all. Mr.
Roosevelt is conducting a crusade against the authoritarian states
under the banner of religion only because the religious compatriots of
his closest friends have been put in their place in the authoritarian
states.
If President Roosevelt believes that he has to take the field to
defend democracy, we may ask where and when we have ever threatened or
attacked democracy. In the past years Germany has done nothing more
than to partially undo the injustices inflicted on it by the
predecessor of the current president of the U.S.A. Germany has not
arbitrarily altered the map of Europe as he did, creating states
against the will of their peoples only for purposes of power politics.
It has only reclaimed its citizens who suffered a decade long under
governments foreign or hostile to Germany...
In a closed session, he told the Defense Committee of the Senate that
the United States must be ready to support England and France in the
event of a European war. The President reportedly even suggested that
definite agreements already existed to this effect. He further
proposed the unrestricted sale of war materials to Western Europe. The
only restriction was that they had to be able to pay for it. When a
member of the American Senate asked how this policy could be squared
with the law demanding strict neutrality over against Europe,
Roosevelt replied: "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
These revelations naturally were a sensation throughout the world. The
impact was greater than the master of the White House in Washington
wanted. He therefore denied the reports. The force of his denial was
somewhat weakened by excited reports in the American press in which
various members of Congress refused to be called liars, and
furthermore suggested that Roosevelt had said even more during the
session than has been reported. The force of the denial was also
weakened by a cynical article in a French newspaper that noted that
"the strength of the claim has not been weakened, for it is not a
matter of the letter of the law, but of the spirit."...
Roosevelt is acting as the mouthpiece and puppet of international
Jewry when he attacks the authoritarian states. They want to use every
means to destroy the newly awakened nations...
The leaders of the Soviet Union tried to persuade their people that
true communism could only develop after all the other states of the
world were allies of the powers in Moscow, and the Red rulers in
Soviet Spain tried and tried to conceal their governmental
incompetence by unleashing a world conflict. We are not surprised to
see the American President in such company. The real rulers of the
Soviet Union are the same as in the United States: international
Jewry.
The truth of this claim is confirmed by the behavior of the wife of
the American President. Mrs. Roosevelt, as a sign of her support for
the Spanish Bolshevist rulers, accepted a gift of stolen etchings by
Spanish masters. Mrs. Roosevelt chaired an exhibition of busts of
Spanish Communist leaders, made by the Jew Josef Davidson. She also
invited the well-known top Bolshevist Toller to lunch. She surrounds
herself with wounded bigwigs of Soviet Spain under whose orders
500,000 Spaniards were killed only because they were faithful to their
beliefs and their religion...
America today is not governed by men like Roosevelt, Ickes, etc.,
rather its fate is determined by the Jews who stand behind them, Jews
like Baruch, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, etc. They are the real rulers of
America, and Roosevelt, Ickes, etc., are only their tools. The fact
that this is known in America is evident from a variety of newspaper
articles. The "New York Daily News," for example, wrote that "the wave
of anti-Semitism in America has increased significantly in recent
weeks and months." The fact that the Jew Bernard Baruch, the
President's closest adviser, is called the unofficial president of the
United States is proof of this fact.
But enough of that. We refuse to interfere in the affairs of other
nations. We think that every country gets the Jews that it deserves.
But we demand the same principle be extended to us. Let Mr. Roosevelt
carry out his reforms and crusades in his own country. He will not
live long enough to do it all. We do not think we have yet seen
anything on the other side of the ocean that is worth imitating. We
think it not a sign of ability, rather of incompetence, that a nation
with such enormous resources and space, with all modern methods, finds
itself in such mass misery and is unable to do anything to alleviate
that misery.
Where would Roosevelt be if he had had to deal with the situation the
F�hrer faced when he took power in Germany? Mr. Roosevelt has
agricultural resources more than sufficient to feed the country, yet
his people are starving. His country has enormous resources, yet
millions are unemployed. There is only one conclusion to be drawn."
Topaz
The Germans removed the Jews from ruling over them. That is what
America needs to do:
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
Law?":
"In 1793 the famous philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, author of
"Speeches to the German Nation," wrote a pamphlet titled "A
Contribution to Correcting Judgments about the French Revolution." It
contained the following significant sentence:
"In nearly all the nations of Europe, a powerful, hostile government
is growing, and is at war with all the others, and sometimes oppresses
the people in dreadful ways: It is Jewry!"
The French Revolution, with its "ideas for the improvement of
humanity" thundered past, and in the noise the people who had believed
in world brotherhood entirely missed this serious warning. What Fichte
warned the word about then has today become fact in nearly all the
nations of the world. The Jewish people, once only tolerated, knew how
to raise a hue and cry about discrimination and persecution, winning
the sympathy of the world for the "poor Jews." They increasingly
infiltrated deep within our national organism, growing to have power
over every single area of our national life. The old saga, the "Edda,"
observes that one blocks a river at its source. The failure to do that
was the great mistake of the German people. Thank God, it is not too
late. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler recognized the importance of the
problem for Germany's rebirth, and outlined its solution in his
program.
Martin Luther wrote this of the Jews in his book "The Jews and their
Lies": "They hold we Christians captive in our own land. They have
seized our goods by their cursed usury, they mock and insult us
because we work. They are our lords, and we and our goods belong to
them." If in the coming days the Jewish race is driven out of the
non-Jewish world, it will have at least this consolation: It has made
clear to them for all time the value of maintaining the purity of race
and blood in clear, understandable and unforgettable ways.
National Socialist racial legislation has reduced the influence of
Jewry in all professions, and above all excluded them from the leading
offices of the nation. That is an important step in the relationship
between Germans and Jews, but one cannot ignore the fact that we have
not yet fully eliminated the influence of the Jewish foreign body in
German national life. It is not a question of German-Jewish
coexistence, rather of making as great as possible a separation
between blood and blood.
Three things are involved here:
A knowledge of the basic principles of National Socialist racial
thinking,
An understanding of the growth and expansion of Jewry,
The dominant sociological position of Jewry, to show how it dominated
the German people economically, intellectually and politically..."
"In discussing the Jewish Question, even today one encounters
resistance and misunderstandings, especially in intellectual circles.
This can only be explained by the intellectual education of the
political past. This is especially evident when one discusses the
fundamental issues.
Whenever a new thought arises in the world and calls people to
practical action, the old world resists because it feels its
foundations threatened. Its old standpoint has ruled for decades, and
it looks uncomprehendingly at a new idea that does not fit into the
accustomed patterns of thinking. That is natural. When the new idea
and worldview are truly revolutionary, they are on a different level
of human thought and feeling, and there can be no compromise. Its
realization depends on people who support it, and who are ready to
fight to transform the life of the individual and of the nation in
every way..."
"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people,
and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations..."
"The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must
therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and
another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both
sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according
to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe
that is is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The
world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context
of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.
The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely
negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is
radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question
clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had
been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of
the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world.
Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power
must be seen as the political education of the German people, which
had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
The question took on its own nature in Germany, Many citizens had
their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and
manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of
political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state.
Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of
complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the
East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness
had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple
rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of
our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its
Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial
measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action
in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its
anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other
country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of
anti-Semitism.
The starting point of the discussion is the scientific fact that the
Jew is different than the German. This is neither arrogant nor
boastful, it simply is the way things are. For us, the Jewish question
is a question between two peoples. Its characteristics are determined
by the racially determined differences between the two, and through
the unusual sociological and numerical development of Jewry in the
course of its history, developments that are particularly evident in
the last decades through a constantly growing process of foreign
infiltration that has reached an intolerable level for the German
people.
More than once over its history, the German people has absorbed
foreign elements, but they were racially identical or similar
population groups, as for example was the case with the Huguenots.
With the Jews, things are fundamentally different. They are seen
everywhere as foreigners, and see themselves that way as well. Walter
Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: "How strange! In the
middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands
out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has
settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg." Einstein said something in
1931: "I have to laugh when I hear the phrase 'German citizen of the
Jewish faith.' These citizens first of all want nothing to do with my
poor Eastern European brothers, and second do not want to be sons of
my (Jewish) people, but only members of the Jewish cultural community.
Is that honest? Can a non-Jew respect such people? I am not a German
citizen. I am a Jew, and am happy to belong to the Jewish people."
The most remarkable thing about Jewry is that it has not disappeared
over the millennia, even though it lacks its own territory and
language. Even more remarkable is that it lacks the main
characteristic of a minority population, its own pockets of settlement
to which it could if necessary retreat. Only time will tell if
Palestine will someday fill this gap. That question is made more
difficult by the fact that the Arabs maintain their claim on
Palestine. Whatever the twists of history, the Jew has always remained
the same, whether as a grain speculator in ancient Rome or as a bank
or stock exchange potentate in the modern era. They were always able
to control the wealth of whole nations. Nations and peoples once their
contemporaries have vanished, leaving only words and crumbled
monuments behind; only the Jew remains. In ancient days we see him
carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean.
In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free
cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole
world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The
power of this people of 15 million rests on these international
relations. This is how they seem to fulfill the commandment of Jehovah
- the world domination of the chosen people.
The secret of the Jewish people, which has enabled them to survive
through all of history's twists and turns, is that it has always
recognized the laws of blood, even anchoring them in the laws of its
religion. The consciousness of blood and family that believing Jews
have has been stronger than all the other forces of history, giving us
a unique example of a people without its own land and language, which
still meets the criteria for being a people, and which has outlasted
many other peoples.
This historic manifestation of Jewry, which is unique, brings to the
fore the question of the relationship between the host and guest
peoples. It has been answered in differing ways throughout history,
depending on the worldview and thinking then predominant.
Since the Jews were dispersed they have been held together by the laws
of their religion and their faith that they were the chosen people.
Until the middle of the 18th Century, Germans and Jews lived apart
from each other. The Jews had no opportunity to become involved in the
religious of political-intellectual life of their host people. On the
other hand, they could practice their own customs without
interference. They had their own religion and their own laws. During
the Middle Ages, the Ghetto was the way Jewry could maintain itself in
the midst of other peoples and fulfill its Jewish duties, which grew
out of its race, origins and laws. The values and ideals of other
peoples were not affected. This separation was only possible because
the views of the host people were as strong as those of the Jews.
According to the writer Grau: "There was no racial defilement or
baptism, no attempt to join a nation that one could never be a member
of, and no attempt to intellectually silence the host people." In the
Ghetto of the Middle Ages, the Jew developed his nature and
characteristics, which were later to become significant, while
maintaining the community of blood and race. The latter is
particularly important, since the strict physical separation between
the host and guest peoples maintained the foreign nature that we daily
see so clearly, now that the barriers between have long since fallen.
Even in the Middle Ages, the most important thing was not the
difference between the Christian and Mosaic faiths. Rather, there was
on the one hand the natural sense that the Jew was of a foreign race,
and on the other hand the strict law of blood which demanded a clear
separation if the Jews were to fulfill Jehovah's mission, which had
guided them from the beginning. Just this has always been kept in the
background by historians, who present the Ghetto as a tolerated asylum
for Jewish martyrs persecuted on account of their faith. There is a
gap to be filled here. The task of historians writing from our new
viewpoint will be to examine the portrait of the Ghetto of the Middle
Ages to discover its importance for the development of Jewry and the
relationship between the guest and host peoples. Even the Jewish side
is demanding that. O. Karbach criticizes historical writing because it
"in significant ways conceals the historical fact that the Jews in the
centuries before their emancipation possessed a legal standing that
was better than the greater part of the rest of the population, namely
complete or partial agricultural freedom. (Ordnung in der Judenfrage,
edited by E. Czermak, Reinhold, Vienna, 1933).
The barriers between Germans and Jews fell as a result of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The path to Jewish world
domination would take a different direction than pious, observant Jews
had expected. Emancipation made it possible to build Jewish dominance
through secular means. With the disappearance of racial consciousness,
only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time
unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his
religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time,
this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was
revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for
centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last
two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood
in the way of racial mixing. Some had the quiet hope that assimilation
would mean the absorption of Jewry. Jewry itself, however, was more
than willing to use the opportunities of religious assimilation, which
opened the path to all important positions, even to political
leadership. As H. Heine said, "baptism was the ticket to European
culture." Gradually, an intermixing with the German people developed,
particularly in its cultural elite. Foreign blood infiltrated to a
degree that we realize only today now that the "Law to Reestablish a
Professional Bureaucracy" has exposed numerous sources of foreign
blood. This process has greatly accelerated during the last fourteen
years.
Today the age of raceless thinking is being displaced by the ideals of
human variability. Values are rooted in origin and territory, and each
group has a historic mission based on its own unique and eternal
values. Such new racial thinking will of course secure the opposition
of those who either through faith or reason still believe in the unity
of humanity in culture, social order and organization. The Jews will
naturally oppose any discussion of race, since the denial of any
significant differences between people is the foundation of his
infiltration of Western European society. The Jew finds any mention of
the racial question as an attack on his current existence. His leading
role in every anti-national area is characteristic of his mimicry, and
is necessary for his continued existence. That explains the phrase
"German citizen of the Jewish faith."
The recognition that the Jew is of a foreign and different race along
with the reawakening of German racial consciousness must necessarily
lead to a change in the relations between Germans and Jews.
There is one point to keep in mind before examining the statistics.
Only those people who claimed to be Jews and were members of the
Mosaic faith were counted as Jews, not those who for internal or
external reasons belonged to another religion, or those who claimed to
be dissident Jews and therefore did not belong to the standard groups.
This is regrettable for our purposes, since we are interested not in
the influence of those who still claimed the Jewish religion, rather
those who belonged to the Jewish race! That includes all Jews, whether
of the Mosaic faith or baptized Christians. That is just what the
supporters of the Talmud and the Old Testament always said. They
complained that the state opened all offices to those "without
character," to "Christmas Jews," even admitting them to the officer
corps! The statistics given here must therefore be increased
significantly. The Jews are a race, and baptism does not in any way
change the foreign characteristics that are hostile to the German
people..."
Of course, the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Jew to
infiltrate the German body politic quickly led the Jew himself to see
that conditions for his advancement were favorable, and that the way
to the top was open. He also realized what the population statistics
meant, indeed they were particularly clear to him, since 2/3 of his
kind lived in the big cities, the centers of the liberal worldview..."
"Nothing shows the differences between our people and the Jews more
clearly than their likes and dislikes for certain occupations. In some
occupations, particularly those that are most important for the nation
as a whole, the foreign influence on German life has reached an
intolerable extent not seen elsewhere in Europe. The preference for
certain occupations also gives us an interesting insight into the
spiritual nature of Jewry.
The following figures show how much critical occupations in Germany
have been infiltrated.
112,188 Jews, or 58.8%, far more than half, are employed in the area
of "commerce and transportation, including restaurants and taverns,"
but only 17.11% (3,248,145) of the population as a whole. In the area
of "industry and craft work, including mining and construction,"
19,318 Jews (25.85%) were employed, including 31.82% of foreigners.
For the population as a whole, the figure was 40.94% (7,771,799).
The figures in the field of "public administration, the judiciary, the
army and navy, churches, legal professionals and the independent
professions." 11,324 Jews were employed there, or 5.94% , over against
921,048 (4.85%) in the general population..."
In 1925, 0.81% of Jews were active as civil servants and the army and
navy, as opposed to 2.3% of the general population. In the church,
religious occupations, the legal system and the other independent
professions, the Jewish percentage is 4.3% as opposed to 2% of the
general population. This shows that the Jews are over-represented when
compared to the general population, particularly in the independent
professions.
The percentage of the Jewish population in government positions may
seem less than that of the general population, but the difference is
not as great as the figures first suggest. The most recent figures,
not yet entirely complete, suggest that a not insignificant number of
them are baptized Jews or dissidents formerly of the Jewish faith who
denied their Jewishness to gain an official position.
4.35% of Jews are employed in the medical and health care system,
including welfare, and 2.0% of foreign Jews. The figure for the
general population is 1.88%. The Jewish percentage is thus 2 1/2 times
as high as that of the general population.
In summary, Jewish occupational patterns differ from those of the rest
of the population. Jewry seems to have an aversion to agricultural
work, industrial labor and crafts. They are greatly over-represented
in commerce and transportation, including the entire banking system.
They are also over-represented in the independent professions and the
health care system. These figures alone demonstrate a clear difference
between the native German population and alien Jewry.
Very similar conditions prevail in all Western European nations and
also in North America, since Jews have spread throughout the world in
areas with growing industry and in cities that are centers of economic
and financial power. It is not true, as is often claimed, that the Jew
was systematically forced into commerce by the laws of the various
nations; rather, commerce particularly suits the Jew's nature. This is
supported by Dr. Arthur Ruppin, a scholar respected by the Jews. He
writes in his book The Jews of the Present (2nd edition, Cologne and
Leipzig, 1911, p. 45):
"Thanks to their significant commercial gifts (!), the Jews soon
enjoyed great success in commerce and industry. For 2000 years they
have seemed predestined to work in commerce. It is false to claim, as
some do, that Jews became merchants primarily because the Christians
denied them other occupations during the Middle Ages. The Jews did not
become merchants in Europe, rather they entered the profession in
growing numbers ever since the Babylonian Captivity in Syria, Egypt
and Babylon [because they dislike labor and prefer to have others work
for them! The Editor]. In Palestine until the dispersion they did live
primarily by agriculture. In the Diaspora, there was hardly anywhere
that the Jews lived by agriculture. The Middle Ages did not make them
into merchants. It only affirmed legally that which history had
already established. It is after all the rule that economic laws
generally do not create new conditions, but only legalize and regulate
that which already exists. The law would never have limited the Jews
to commerce in Europe if they had not already immigrated primarily as
merchants..."
Nearly all national economists agree that the Jews owe their role as
merchants not to chance, but to their excellent abilities as
merchants. As W. Sombart wrote: "The Jewish race is by nature the
incarnation of the capitalism-mercantile spirit." (Der moderne
Kapitalismus, Vol. 2, p. 349. Leipzig, 1902). Many others agree..."
"Similarly differences in the relative proportion of Jews by the
self-employed are evident in the medical field, which employs 0.5% of
the general population but 2.8% of the Jews, nearly six times as many.
Similar statistics are found in the cultural area (theater, film,
radio, education, teaching, etc.). The 0.4% of the general population
are employed there, 2.6% of the Jews, also about six times as many.
In the area of public administration and the judiciary, the percentage
of Jews in high positions is 2.0%, over against 1.3% of the general
population, nearly twice as high. The significance of these figures
becomes clear that when one realizes that the 2.3% of professional
Jews in public administration and the judiciary are in a branch where
the Jewish percentage of employees is only 0.81%. That means that the
Jews are especially represented in the important positions that
influence the whole government and leading branches of the economy.."
"The statistics may be interesting. The Jewish workers included 11,406
in industry, 2,220 in commerce and transportation, and 726 in
agriculture.
The following figures show most clearly the different social structure
of Jewry in Prussia over against the general population, and reveal
clearly Jewry's leading role in public life:.."
"On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to
Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State
Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: "Should
I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the
Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim
to Bolshevism out of desperation?"
Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that,
according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925 6.9% of all
independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of
all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of
editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all
independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews
were only 1% of the population! Is that anything other than a
Jewdification of our entire cultural system?! And what would these
figures look like if one had had the ability to include baptized Jews
and dissidents?..."
"Berlin is the Jewish metropolis in Germany. The process of
Jewdification is considerably further along. That is understandable,
since one is in the immediate vicinity of the protective arms of
democracy and social democracy, where developments can occur
unhindered. Thus in Berlin on 16 June 1925 32.2% of the pharmacists
were Jews, as were 49.9% of the physicians, 7.5 of the graphic
artists, 50.2% of the attorneys, 8.5% of the editors, 14.2% of the
directors and theater heads, 12.3% of the actors and 37.5% of the
dentists.
These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is
surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action
to tell the Jews "this far and no further."
The Jewish influence gave the rest of the world an entirely false
impression of the nature of the German people. Inside the Reich, they
poisoned the soul of the people, and all social and political
relationships. Until the national uprising, the leaders of the
National Socialist movement were persecuted, defamed and suppressed by
a system that was a willing tool in the hands of a foreign and
different race. The national revolution freed the German people from
this foreign influence, which had also dominated and ruined the German
press and public life in significant ways.
He who wants to understand the German revolution of 1933 must
understand that it had this goal: 'Germany must be governed by Germans
for Germans.' The central idea of the National Socialist revolution
was the longing of the German people to once more be master in every
area of its own life. As a great, confident people, we demand only
this of the other peoples: that they permit us, as their equals, to
govern ourselves as we wish and find our own way to happiness (Reich
Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick)..."
"The Jewdification of our colleges and universities over the years has
reached almost frightening proportions. We begin with a publication
from 1931. Karl Hoppmann, in his volume "On the State of Jewdification
in the Academic professions" found the following figures:
1. University of Berlin:
Medical faculty . . . . over 50%
Philosophical faculty . . . . 25%
2. University of G�ttingen, 32% of the professors were Jewish:
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 23.0%
3. University of Breslau
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
4. University of Frankfurt (Main)
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 28.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Jewry has a dominating role on the stock exchange. The board of the
Berlin stock exchange is almost exclusively Jewish. In the various
committees, the percentage of the Jewish race is sometimes many times
as high as the Aryan. The committees include:
That means that 117 or 147 members are Jews, or nearly 80%.
The extent of the Jewdification of German theater and film is evident
from 1931 figures. Of 234 theater directors, 118 (50.4%) were Jews, 92
(39.3%) were non-Jewish.
Berlin led in this area as well, with 23 of 29 theater directors (80%)
Jewish.
The situation in film is similar. The Viennese Catholic periodical
"Sch�nere Zukunft," which certainly cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism, wrote the following in its 3 February 1929 issue:
"The percentage of Jewry in today's film industry is so high, at least
by us in Germany, that there is only a tiny part left for Christian
firms."
Jewry has long sought political influence as well. This formerly
happened in covert ways, mostly through direct or indirect control of
money matters. Nearly every noble once had his financial Jew. Since
1848, the birth of political parties in Germany, Jewry has openly
sought to become a political power. The Jew Marx was the founder of
Marxist doctrine, the Jew Lassalle was the founder of the Social
Democratic Party. The founders of the Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany were the Jews Bernstein, Haase, Kautsky, Hilferding,
Cohn, Davidsohn, Simon, Rosenfeld, Eisner, Levi, etc. Carl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemberg were the leaders of the Communist Party, and
recently the Jews Rosenfeld and Seydewitz founded the Socialist
Workers Party. Jews sat in the press offices and the various editorial
offices of party newspapers, and above all in the various
parliamentary factions..."
"We think it necessary to mention that the Communist wave that
threatened to destroy Germany politically, economically and
intellectually can primarily be traced back to Jewry.
Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish
influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and
clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance
and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the
other. Several pointed Jewish statements are examples:
Hochmut: The familiar "Dorfgeschichte"-Auerbach says: "We Jews are the
most intelligent race." "We are the chosen ones," says Dr. Berhard
Cohn (J�disch-Politische Streitfragen, 20, 22). He continues: "We may
carry our head high and demand particular respect. We must not only be
treated equally, but better. We deserve the particular respect of
other peoples."
Rabbi Dr. Rulf wrote a book ("Aruchas bar-Ammni," Israel's Healing,
Frankfurt a. M. 1883) in which he says: "The Jewish people is a
blessing for all peoples. The blessing has followed on the heels of
the Jews. A whole world lives from the Jews, who feed everyone, and
everywhere spread wealth and pleasure, comfort and prosperity. Only
the commerce of the Jews creates value. Work alone does not do that.
Half of the world's population would starve without the Jews."
The Jew Dr. Duschak wrote: "The world could not exist without the
Jews." The well-known Jew Sacher-Masoch explained the hatred of
anti-Semites against the Jews in this way: It is the same hatred a
Negro feels against the whites because of their superiority.
That the Jews even went so far as to suggest to Bismark that he make
the Jewish Day of Atonement a national holiday is certainly no sign of
modesty.
Intolerance: The Jew Klausner (Society, edited by Conrad, Volume 12)
wrote: "Anti-Semitism and criminality are nearly the same thing. There
are criminals who were not anti-Semites, but no anti-Semites who were
not criminals."
The work by Dr. E. Fuchs. "The Future of the Jews," (Berlin,
Philo-Verlag, 1924) judges our greatest historians, Hartmann and
Treitschke, who see the Jews as our misfortune: "Men blinded by
prejudice and hatred. Small, tiny men."
World Domination: The Jewish attorney Maurthner in Vienna said back in
the 1880's: "It is not just a matter of fighting anti-Semitism. We
want to oppose it with Jewish domination!"
They made the attempt. If the German people had not recovered their
senses at the last moment, and if they had not had a Fuehrer and
Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who recognized the danger and woke the
German people, we would have fallen into slavery. As we have already
noted, the Jew has always known how to rouse sympathy when things were
rough for him. Consider this report from the meeting of the PEN Club
in Ragusa at the end of May of last year: "Schalom Asch in his keynote
address noted that the suffering of the Jews in Germany had aroused
the sympathy of the entire world. Only the German government remained
untouched. He claimed the Jews has given Germany its deepest thoughts,
its most beautiful songs, its greatest poets, artists and
philosophers. Today one had crucified them in Germany and covered them
with their own blood." Mr. Schalom Asch began crying in the midst of
these outrageous lies. He spoke in the hope that his words would be
heard for the sake of justice and humanity throughout the world.
The Jew Asch cries! The German people are not moved. They want no
torture or persecution, but also no unjustified sympathy, only
justice! Remember always the worlds of Field Marshall Moltke: "The Jew
is a state within the state." Remember also the works of our great
historian Mommsen: "In antiquity too the Jew was the ferment of
cosmopolitanism and national decomposition." And remember Goethe: "The
Israelites have never done much; they possess few virtues, and most of
the deficiencies of other peoples!"
The Racial Question has an important role in the laws of other
nations, though other peoples and races are affected than in the
German Reich. It is in no way new or unusual that the German Reich is
active in this area. Contrary to opinions that surface here and there,
our laws are in no way directed against the Jewish religion, its
practice, or the freedom of the Jewish faith.
The German Reich has done nothing but introduce constitutional
legislation to provide the kind of civil service necessary to
guarantee the secure administration of the Reich. The laws do not
render it impossible for a citizen of a foreign state to become a
civil servant. Indeed, if he is appointed to such a position, he
receives full citizenship in the Reich. German civil servants should
however be of Aryan descent. The so-called Aryan Law requires that
each civil servant be of German blood. Since the vast majority of
non-Aryan civil servants were Jews, the first guidelines to the law
paid particular attention to those who were members of the Jewish
race. But we did not simply throw out the non-Aryan civil servants,
but retired them with honor and a pension. The people's state could
hardly proceed in a more legal and mild manner. Germany did not want
to attack Jewry wildly, rather only deal with its results, is clear
from the fact that the Law of 7 April 1933 left untouched all
non-Aryan civil servants who had been appointed before 1 August 1914,
and by the fact that the private sphere not affected. Some complain
that the law extends to half and quarter Aryans. The answer is that
the foreign influence in the civil service had grown to such a
dangerous extent that it was almost impossible for young Germans to
enter these professions." (Reich Minister of the Interior Dr.
Frick..."
Topaz
Topaz
Berlin-Lankwitz,
D�rkheimerstrasse 14,
GERMANY.
August 7th, 1933.
Dear Ken:
Don't think that I am going to be taken to an insane asylum nor
that the world is coming to an end. This is not so, and I must object
very sincerely if the fact of my sitting down again after only several
months write a letter to you gives you such impressions. The reason
for this outstanding event is much rather the hotheaded criticism
about Hitler and his Government which you gave us in your recent
letter to Ruth, and which indeed surprised me very much. However,
before giving you my point of view on the new turn that has taken
place in Germany I should like to ask you to in the first place do me
the favor of keeping your shirt on, otherwise it is you who is making
"an ass of himself". One should never speak the language of a truck
driver, no matter how much one likes it. Now, don't be mad, but calm
down. You did not hurt Ruth's or my feelings at all, but there are two
reasons why I feel I should answer you. The first reason is that your
remarks are very unfair to Hitler and his new Government, and the
other is that I intend to do my share in preventing the American
generation to which you belong to be equally as ignorant as the
generation of the whole world was which tumbled into the last war.
What makes you believe and in such a definite way state that we
are unable to see the things as they are, since, as you write, we are
hypnotized by Hitler. It is not true, that you and all those of your
friends who you claim take the same viewpoint as you are taking are
basing your opinion upon reports and comments of American newspapers
and perhaps upon interviews of American visitors who recently have
been in Germany, and while you are willing to disregard certain
exaggerations you readily accept the rest as the truth? Is it not
possible that thus you are receiving but one side of the story?
You know that the American Press endeavoring to please the so
called taste for sensational news of the American Public is working
according to the countrywide newspaper principal: All the news that's
fit to print, and be it even lies. I do not belong to those who claim
that it is the American people who have such taste, but instead it is
the American Press which in order to obtain the attention of the
reader considers any means good enough to beat competition. You will
never find such crookedness among decent business. Such business
spirit is identified all over the world with the jewish business
spirit. You must not misunderstand me. Such spirit can be found among
Christian Jews as well as among Jewish Christians, if you get what I
mean. Nevertheless it is all over the world condemned as the jewish
spirit. You will not doubt this, I suppose? Perhaps in this connection
you will find it interesting to recall that the inventor of the most
unchivalrous means to fight the enemy, namely the father of all
newspaper liars, Lord Northcliffe was a Jew. When comparing the basis
of your knowledge about present day Germany with the basis of our
knowledge, don't you think that ours at least is a broader basis?
Don't you think that the possibility of witnessing present
developments in Germany combined with the ability of reading and
understanding American newspapers can represent an ideal basis of
knowledge for such person who - and this is the important thing - is
free of all feelings of hatred against either one of the two
countries?
The Berlin Correspondents of the American newspapers are not such
persons. Many of them are jews and many have taken a hostile attitude
towards Germany long before Hitler ever appeared on the stage of
German Public Life. This includes also Mr. Mowrer of the Chicago
Herald Tribune who, as I saw from the New York Times received this
years Pulitzer Prize of Journalism for his "excellent" articles on the
German development. A year ago a German Democrat, mind you, not a
Nazi, expressed astonishment that I should like to call upon Mr.
Mowrer, since this "excellent" American reporter has long enjoyed the
reputation even among German Democrats of being a German hater. This
hostility towards Germany on the part of American Correspondents in
Berlin indeed could much more entitle me to claim that it is you who
is hypnotized namely by the American Press in general.
Dear Kenneth, not until today in August 23rd could I find time to
continue this letter. When rereading what I so far have said above I
doubt if it is of any use to speak to you the way I did. I know you
are not anti-German, and yet while having received your school
education at a time of outright hostility towards Germany your mind is
only to readily inclined to accept any piece of news about Germany as
true and the correct version as long as this piece of news is
presented in such form which is free from obvious sensational
exaggeration. Since, however no piece of news published in the
American papers is reporting favorably on the German National
Socialistic Revolution your mind is systematically kept from turning
pro-German. This is the work of jewish influence in the American
Press. In face of such mental attitude of yours you naturally hesitate
to accept as the correct version anything which is told you by someone
who on one hand is not even a 100% American Citizen and on the other
hand is, as you know pro-German. For this reason I doubt if I can
change anything of your attitude towards Hitlerite Germany and of the
attitude of those of our friends who, as you claim take the same
viewpoint as you are taking. When, however, after reconsideration I
continue this letter it is, because even if I should not convince you
I wish to do my share in trying to destroy this hostile spirit of the
American People towards Germany and especially to contribute to making
the young Americans a more broadminded generation.
In the following I am going to copy part of my last letter to Mr.
Houston. The article I sent him months ago interested him very much.
Unfortunately he told me it was not written in good enough English. I
naturally am rather disappointed that my English still is too poor.
But even if my English had been correct there would have been no
possibility to place my article, Mr. Houston wrote, not saying of
course that any favorable viewpoint is prevented from publication in
the American Press. Here is what I answered him.
" --- Whereas the American papers beyond doubt are carrying a
tremendous amount of material about Germany from their regular
correspondents, and no number of interviews from all kinds of people
who recently have been in Germany, all this material, and be it even
just a report, is skillfully presented in such form which seemingly
intentially aims at being equally offensive for Hitler and his new
Government through ridiculing his deeds as giving nourishment to
anti-German sentiment. Most of the recent American visitors in Germany
seem to be of the type of jews whose hatred towards Hitlerite Germany
is a fanatical one. They of course are not in a position to give a
true picture to their countrymen of what they have seen or heard. Mr.
Michael Williams, editor of The Commonweal, president of the Calvert
Association, and a member of the Committee appointed by the American
Committee on Religious Reports and Minorities to go to Germany and
investigate conditions published a report (New York Times of June
14th) of his own private visit, since the committees visit was
postponed. He claimed to have spent "nearly" two weeks in Berlin
interviewing members of the Hitler Government, leading business and
professional men, both German and American, as well as Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish leaders. Not one single name is mentioned in his
report. "One of the most prominent German political leaders"(?) told
him that the outlawing of the Jews was a mistake comparable only to
the invasion of Belgium at the outbreak of the World War. It is plain
that such a remark, if it really was made, could be made only by a
person equally hostile towards Germany as Mr. Williams himself. Maybe
this interview took place at a concentration camp. When returning to
America these people cry: Democracy is at an end in Germany. But they
are anxiously concealing the truth that before Hitler came jewish
democratic corruption has brought Germany on the verge of Communism.
Such "Democracy" indeed is at an end now in Germany. All this
excitement about democracy being at an end and about "persecutions"
and outlawing of the German Jews who amount to but 1% of the total
German population seems very strange indeed when compared with the
calmness with which the world took the cruelty and terrorism of the
Russian Revolution which, as everyone knows, was prepared and created
by Jews and by jewish money.
Too bad that Mr. James G. McDonald, chairman of the Foreign Policy
Association, can find nothing better for him to do than to call upon
all American Christians to step into line with Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, as
I see from the New York Times of June 15th and July 11th. He too has
recently been in Germany, and on July 11th the New York Times
published his address in Chautauqua, N.Y. dealing with his visit in
Germany and with the situation there as it existed more than three
months ago, namely on April 1st, at the time of the (24 hours)
anti-Jews boycott. The report in the paper was headed by the remark:
Statements that Jews are not being cruelly treated in Germany were
termed "an insult to the intelligence" by James G. McDonald. Thus the
American Public is made to believe that Mr. McDonald is furnishing an
up-to-date denial for all new reports about improving conditions in
Germany. Such is the way matters about Germany are twisted in the
American Press. Senator Wagner too has stepped into line with Rabbi
Wise as I have noticed. I regret it, but I am convinced that many
people have done so because of absolute misinformation about present
day Germany. People trying to argue in favor of Hitlerite Germany, as
Mr. Bernard Ridder tried to do, are quickly being ridiculed as one may
see from the New York Times comment of June 14th, and I doubt if the
well known Radio announcer Douglas Brinkley who during his visit in
Germany in Berlin Talkies expressed his admiration for Hitler and this
new Germany ever again will be allowed to broadcast in America.
The Berlin correspondents of the American Press fall in line with
the above mentioned general attitude towards Germany. I suppose they
have to in order to keep their jobs. This might be easy for them,
since many of them are Jews and some are known to be hostile towards
Germany long before Hitler ever appeared in front of German Public
Life. Under such circumstances it seems plain to me that any viewpoint
favorable for Germany would today not be considered by the big
American papers, since jewish influence in the American Press is much
too strong.
Dear Mr. Houston, when in the above I have given you my opinion
about American Public Opinion it was done, because I feel confident
that you will not misunderstand me. When I am arguing for Hitler and
in favor of present day Germany it is not only because of the many
great deeds of Hitler (uniting the German people, crushing Communism,
successfully fighting unemployment) but also because I positively know
that the only way to serve the purpose of German American friendship
is to bring about mutual respect between the people of the two
countries. To accomplish this one must fight for mutual respect
between Opinion in America and in Germany. German Public Opinion and
the German People are showing this respect for America. Everyone here
is speaking of the courage and leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt in
terms of admiration. It is up to American Public Opinion to give honor
where honor is due.
So much about my letter to Mr. Houston. Now I shall give you part of
my article which I sent to Mr. Houston and which he showed to Dr.
Wilbur Thomas, the Director of the Carl Schurz Foundation, and to Dr.
Carl Ackerman, the Dean of the School of Journalism at Columbia
University. Although, as I said above it is not written in good
English, Mr. Houston as well as the two other gentlemen found the
article very interesting. Here is what I said back in May 1933.
After a short introduction I wrote: "The world war was won not with
the sword but with the pen. This is a German opinion which is shared
also by a good many Americans. Apart from now one might think on this
subject nobody today would deny the fact that the pen, if used as a
weapon, can prove to be a mighty deadly sword. If now we wish to
liquidate the world war, if we seriously endeavor to promote world
peace, to promote good relationship between the nations of the world
it seems to be absolutely essential that we should stop using war
weapons and stop tolerating warlike propaganda. In other words, we
should do all we can to prevent endangering good relationship between
countries. Claiming to be well acquainted with German political
troubles of past years as well as with the mentality of the German
People I feel that the American newspaper reader is not at all put in
a position to get a clear and true conception about Germany. Above all
it is to my mind equally silly as it is preventing the education of
the American people if the American newspaper reader is left to
believe that the Germans are a barbaric nation. The absurdity of such
statements does not make them less dangerous to good relationship
between the American and the German people. If in the following I am
dealing with the fundamental achievement and the fundamental aim of
the German national socialistic revolution I am doing it for the
benefit of a better understanding between the American and the German
people. This better understanding is the more necessary the more we
wish to prevent that a few years of animosity between the two
countries should be permitted to destroy a century old friendship
between the American and the German people.
Contrary to political custom Hitler said in his address to the
masses on the Tempelhof field on May 1st that he is not going to tell
the workman how important for the Nation the labourman and his work
are, and turn around and speak to the intelligent class of people as
if to the cream of the Nation, and turn around again and speak to the
peasant telling him how valuable he is. On the contrary he is going to
demonstrate to one class of people the importance and the value of the
other. This attitude is not only wise, but it also reveals the mystery
of this sudden sense of unity that has come over the German people.
When I am going to apply the same methods while writing to America
about Germany, it is because making one people understand and respect
another people might equally well prove to be the best method to bring
about the much longed for mutual understanding between the nations of
the world.
The German national socialistic revolution beginning on January
30th, still in full swing today, and going to be carried out
furthermore for an indefinite time to come is a revolution of mind. It
is a revolution of the national mind as well as of the social mind of
the people. Only a short time ago American Correspondents and
traveling newspapermen used to report from Germany that the growing of
the Hitlerite Party was the outcome of general dissatisfaction and
hardship. If this had been the case, if Hitler had gained support
merely on the ground of promising the same bread and work with all of
his
(page missing)
possibility of such development before taking place in Germany, Hitler
succeeded in changing the minds of his followers from the Communist
rank and file. They no more are Communists, but National socialists.
They have killed in themselves that hatred they felt towards the rich
and towards the white-collar-man, in general to an equal extent as
this white-collar-man and this rich man have been made to no more look
down upon the workman or anybody doing manual labor. It is true, not
all of Germany has turned to national socialism. However while for
this very reason Hitler's revolution still is in full swing, and will
be carried out furthermore until such time when this final aim is
reached, a new election, if held today, might well show an increase of
the nationalsocialsit vote from 17.5 million on March 5th to close to
30 million out of a total electorate of about 44 million votes.
Hitler's revolution of mind, as I have tried to explain it, in no
way is representing a danger to world peace, and again it seems
strange that Hitler's assurances to keep peace frequently are ignored
in reports printed in the foreign Press. As impressive as this German
revolution of mind might be to the foreign observer who knows Germany
and the German people it is only reasonable that it cannot be equally
impressive to those Americans who not yet have had a chance to visit
and get acquainted with Germany. After all, this new German spirit is
nothing new to us in America. Republicans and Democrats, both call it
the true democratic spirit. The workman in America always has been as
much respected as the white-collar-man, and our boys have long been
working their way through College through manual labor. However, for
this very reason it seems to me that no people is better equipped
mentally to understand this new Germany and its leader than the
American people.
If when writing about the Germany nationalsocialistic revolution I
would fail to touch the jewish problem in Germany the reader indeed
would miss an important explanation to a new German attitude which has
created worldwide interest and partly even new animosity. Endeavoring
to from and impartial point of view seek an explanation for this
change in Germany one must realize two outstanding facts. One is that
the percentage of Jews in Germany indeed is exceptionally small and
the other is that this small percentage in postwar years has enjoyed
an undue large share of public influence. While moreover a great many
Jewish names are connected with all kinds of affairs of administrative
corruption of postwar Germany thus making it all the easier for Hitler
and his followers to gain countrywide support when calling for a
radical reduction of the Jewish influence, it is wrong to regard this
attitude as an affront to the Jewish religion. This it is not. Instead
this attitude is directed against a postwar political system which has
discredited the Marxist parties in Germany and the Jews, since many of
them have played such prominent part in cooperation with those parties
and the many cases of disloyalty and dishonesty they have been
connected with. When I said above that the small percentage of Jews in
Germany in postwar years so far have enjoyed an undue large share of
public influence, this was possible because of their close cooperation
with the Marxist parties. In other words it was not superior ability
which entitled them to such share but political pull. Until recently
conditions in Germany indeed were of such kind that many a Christian
student would cease studying, since he had to realize that his road of
future was blocked by political interests, whereas the jewish student
would keep on studying knowing perfectly well that his father,
although perhaps a businessman and not a politician, nevertheless had
sufficient political pull to pave his way. In such development the new
Germany sees a controlling increase of the Jewish element in the field
of education which the Jewish population percentage in Germany does
not justify.
Hand in hand with this development the possibility of marrying has
thus been made so much easier for the young Jewish generation, which
fact in turning no doubt is contributing to increasing the population
percentage of the German Jews to the disadvantage of the other
confessions. Such developments are of no little importance for
Germany, and while today under the Hitler Government a radical change
is being made this radicalism is not directed against each single
Jewish citizen. On the contrary the form in which the new laws are
being applied show a liberal spirit and reveal the truth that the
attitude of Hitler Germany towards this Jewish problem ought to
correctly be regarded as directed against a political system of
corruption with which the German Jews unfortunately so impressively
have identified themselves."
So much from my article. I hope I have put it clear enough to
realize that the Jewish problem in Germany is a question of life or
death of the German race. If such development as was tolerated before
Hitler came should be permitted to continue it should be obvious for
everyone that in the course of time the face of the German population
would change considerably. Germany, as you know, has a population of
66 million people. Among these 66 million are but about 600,000 Jewish
citizen. Under those circumstances as described above this small
percentage in the course of time could increase rapidly because of
conditions of life being more protected against all hardship,
marriages being made easier because of professional and business
protection which safeguard in turn enables the Jewish woman to give
birth to children. Moreover it should be easy to realize that favoring
the Jewish element to such an extent as was done before Hitler came
necessarily leads to giving away the top positions in Government,
industry, and education to Jews, while on the other hand the German
race of Protestant and Catholic confession is being pushed back into
positions of no influence which in turn in the course of time will
make them unable to lead their own country because of being deprived
the necessary educational training in matters of administration, big
business, and education. At the same time their population percentage
of now 99% is rapidly decreasing because of the German woman through
hardship of life and uncertainty because of the German woman through
hardship of life and uncertainty of the husbands future being unable
to give birth to children.
Dear Kenneth, my English might be very poor, but I hope you get what
I am trying to explain. I hope you see that Hitler's anti-Semitism is
not directed against the Jewish religion nor against each single Jew.
No Jewish citizen here is being molested. News to the contrary are
lies and nonsense. Such news naturally are being spread by Jews, since
the Jews realize very well, as the newspaper "Jewish Chronicle"
published in South Africa recently admitted, that the Jewish fight for
world control through the Hitler Revolution in Germany has received a
setback of 100 years of strenuous work. The Jewish citizen in Germany
shall continue to enjoy a peaceful living as he did before Hitler came
with the only exception that he shall enjoy no influence beyond the
frame of his own population percentage. In the interest of the German
race I do not hesitate to call such attitude, as queer as it might
seem to you, a "democratic persecution" and I regard it as very sound.
The Jewish citizen who does not like such democratic persecution might
leave the country and immigrate somewhere else. And when I say
immigrate somewhere else you perhaps will realize how harmful it was
and still is that the USA for such a long time had kept its doors open
especially at times of business prosperity. In America the Jew saw a
vast country with tremendous resources and no end of business
possibilities. But he had no intention to go out and work. You will
find no Jew being busy as farmer. No, such common work is good enough
for the children and grandchildren of the Christian pilgrims of
German, French and English birth who alone have built up the country
which is called the United States. The Jew was doing the business of
his own race, namely lending out money and waiting in his armchair for
the return. Thus he gradually got hold of this and that business
undertaking, thus he gradually got hold of the entire country. There
is today no country in the whole world with a more powerful influence
of the Jewish element except perhaps England, than the USA. The fact
that such a powerful Christian businessman as Henry Fold is flatly
denying everything he said in his book against the Jews speaks for
itself. The German element among the American population used to have
a great influence in the country. And when I recall the name of
Steuben do you doubt that such influence was for the benefit of the
country? Where are the Steubens of today? Don't tell me there are
none. That is not correct. But it is true that in the course of time
the German American element has been degraded to the influence of a
butcher and grooceryshopowner. Where there are exceptions you will
possibly find that the exception is a Jew. The USA was not governed by
Washington but by Wall Street. Franklin D. Roosevelt is the first
President to challenge this. It remains to be seen if the power he has
been given is sufficient for the success. You may be absolutely sure
that Washington and Berlin are in perfect accord although this
sometimes does not seem so.
Washington is not fighting against Hitler, but instead is watching
Hitler's experiment with the Jewish problem with very keen interest
knowing perfectly well that this experiment might lead the whole
world. Watch Ireland, watch the increase of fascism in England, watch
the change in France that will come, remember the American Postmaster
Generals order forbidding anti-German boycott stamps on the back of
envelopes.
October 2nd 1933.
Dear Kenneth: Not until today could I find time to continue this
letter, and I must admit that since your last letter arrived which
again was full of insulting remarks about Adolf Hitler I feel little
inclined to do so. I must state that you have changed greatly. You
were much more grown-up when in May 1932 you left us. I don't know
whose influence it is and I don't care. I only know that while you
were with us you grew accustomed to argue in a serious way seeking
effect only through the sincerity of your argument and not through a
strong language. The letter method is used only by children and
hysteric women and men. If I wanted to argue with you on the basis of
your last letter I indeed could easily come back and picture a great
many Americans who have been making an ass of themselves and still are
making an ass of themselves, and I could speak much more convincing,
since I know America, whereas you in your highhatted ignorance are
adopting nothing but what jewish reporters publish and you fall for
any line of talk as long as the lies are presented in a somewhat
plausible form. You need not boast about not having Nationalsozialism
in America. It is quite doubtful if such is an advantage, and the fact
that the American Democratic system given to the country by men who
justfully can be called great Americans has grown into a system of
rotten corruption might bring about American Nationalsozialism quicker
than you think.
Any system of government stands and falls with its leaders. Are the
leaders rotten the system will turn to be rotten too. Such was the
case in Germany, and such might be the case in America too. Moreover
America some day might be happy to turn to Nationalsozialism instead
of turning to Communism. However as long as there are many of young
Americans thinking the way you do, namely from one moving picture to
another I see great trouble ahead for the country, trouble which will
be far more serious than the Russian revolution was. When in face of
your calling us being hypnotized I answer you that I am a great
admirer of Adolf Hitler I am doing so in order to warn you to remain
as narrow-minded as you now are. You never will hear the truth about
present day Germany, for America at present is a jewish country.
Jewish influence is dominating, and sooner or later the American
Aryans will realize what they shall have to fight for.
Nationalsozialism would never come to America from Germany but from
the Aryan population in America and such will bring about a rebirth of
Washington's United States.
Why cry about the poor little children who are called upon to join
Hitler's junior leagues, when they themselves are crazy to do so.
Little Jobi has joined and he is tickled to death about it. Why throw
out your chest and condemn militarism when there is no country on the
face of the earth more militaristic than the United States? Or do you
deny that American boys in their small years even are receiving
military training? Is such a sign that America intends to go to war?
You say: No. Well, I answer you, Germany won't either. A picture of
Hindenburg and Hitler published in an American paper was called: A
business conference between H. and H., whereas truly it was a picture
of the celebration of the battle of Tannenberg. Such shows how much
even in matters of minor importance American newspapers are making an
ass of themselves. Even if you don't like it, Adolf Hitler is one of
the greatest and at the same time one of the most modest men Germany
has ever had. Future will show that I am right. Goodbye now, and don't
think that I am sore, I am just a little disappointed in you.
Hearty greetings,
Dave Heil
> KARL L. SCHOTTE
> Berlin-Lankwitz,
> D�rkheimerstrasse 14,
> GERMANY.
> August 7th, 1933.
> Dear Ken:
> Why cry about the poor little children who are called upon to join
> Hitler's junior leagues, when they themselves are crazy to do so.
> Little Jobi has joined and he is tickled to death about it. Why throw
> out your chest and condemn militarism when there is no country on the
> face of the earth more militaristic than the United States? Or do you
> deny that American boys in their small years even are receiving
> military training? Is such a sign that America intends to go to war?
> You say: No. Well, I answer you, Germany won't either.
If you were more intelligent, Topie, you'd never keep running this
piece. Any fool knows that there were few countries *less* prepared for
war in the decade leading up to WWII than the U.S. Any fool could tell
you that Germany *was* mobiling for war and that before the decade was
out, she'd start invading her neighbors.
I can easily deny that young American boys were receiving military
training in 1933. I've known too many who were kids during that time.
Then your character says that Germany won't go to war. The only problem
with that statement is that Germany did invade her neighbors.
This piece was filled with lies.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> The Germans removed the Jews from ruling over them.
ROFLMAO. You're in denial, boy.
I guess you never saw this:
http://shop.wisconsinhistory.org/productcart/pc/catalog/newsnazis_gen.jpg
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>"We National Socialists
had their leaders hung as criminals or committed suicide.
[chuckle]
You're next. I gave Simon Wiesenthal your name.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
Here is a quote from -Analysis of The Personality of Adolf Hitler
Dr. Henry A. Murray
Harvard Psychological Clinic.
-Analysis of The Personality of Adolf Hitler
Klaus Schadenfreude
>KARL L. SCHOTTE
>Berlin-Lankwitz,
>D�rkheimerstrasse 14,
>GERMANY.
>August 7th, 1933.
>Dear Ken:
> Don't think that I am going to be taken to an insane asylum nor
>that the world is coming to an end.
Yet it did come to an end, for Nazi Germany. 1945. The Thousand Year
Reich- kaput! [chuckle]
Nazis are SO stupid......
Topaz
German leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the
allies were subhuman monsters:
Eyewitness account by Mrs. Leonora Geier (nee Cavoa, born Oct 22,
1925, Sao Paulo,
Brazil) to Dr. Trutz Foelsche, Ph.D
Deutsche Nationalzeitung, No. 17-65, p. 7:
"On the morning of February, 16, (1945) a Russian detachment
occupied the RAD (Reichsarbeitsdienst) camp Vilmsee near Neustettin.
The Commissar told me in good German language that the camp was
dissolved and that we, as a unit with uniforms (RAD - German Labour
Service, not military uniforms), would be transported to a collection
camp. Since I, as a Brazilian citizen, belong to an allied nation, he
asked me to take over as a leader of the transport that went to
Neustettin, into the yard of the former iron factory. We were about
500 girls (Maidens of the Reichsarbeitsdienst - German Labour
Service).
He said I could come into the orderly room, which I accepted.
Immediately he directed me to make no further contact with other
women, because they were members of an illegal army. On my response
that this what not true, he cut me off with the remark that I would be
shot immediately, if I would repeat in any form a similar statement.
"Suddenly I heard loud screams, and promptly five girls were brought
in by the two Red Armists. The Commissar ordered them to undress. When
they, in a sense of shame, refused to do so, he ordered me to undress
them and follow him with the girls. We walked through the yard to the
former factory kitchen, which was completely cleared out
except for some tables along the window wall. It was dreadfully cold
and the unfortunate girls trembled. In the huge tiled room several
Russians waited for us who were obviously making obscene remarks
because every word was followed by loud laughter.
The Commissar then directed me to watch how one makes sissies out of
'The Master Race'.
Now two Poles, clad in trousers only, entered the room. At their
sight the girls cried out.
Briskly, they seized the first of the two girls and bent her over with
her back over the edge of the table until her joints cracked. I almost
fainted when one of the men pulled his knife and cut off her right
breast in the presence of the other girls. I have never heard a
human being scream as desperately as this young woman. After this
'operation' both men stabbed her several times in the abdomen,
accompanied by the howling of the Russians.
The next girl cried for mercy, in vain, since she was exceptionally
pretty. I had the impression that the 'work' was carried out very
slowly. The other three girls were completely broken down, cried for
their mothers and begged for a speedy death, but also
fate them overtook.
The last of the girls was still half a child, with barely developed
breasts, one tore the flesh literally from her ribs until the white
bone appeared.
Again, five girls were brought in. This time, they had been selected
carefully. All were developed and pretty. When they saw the bodies of
their predecessors, they began to cry and scream. Weak as they were,
they tried to defend themselves but to no avail; the Poles became more
cruel every time. One of the girls, they cut open her womb and trunk
over the whole length; poured a can of machine oil into the mutilated
body and tried to set fire to it. Another was shot in the genitals by
a Russia, before they cut off her breasts.
A great howling began when someone brought a saw from a toolbox.
Now, using the saw, they set to work to the breasts of the girls to
pieces, which in a short period of time led to the floor being covered
with blood. A blood rage seized the Russians. Continuously
one of them brought more and more girls.
Like a red fog, I saw the gruesome happenings again and again and I
perceived the inhuman screaming at the torture of their breasts and
the load groaning at the mutilation of their private parts. When my
legs failed me I was forced into a chair. The Commissar persistently
watched me to make sure I was looking toward the torture scenes. In
fact, when I had to vomit, they even paused with their tortures. One
girl had not undressed completely, she may have been somewhat older
than the rest of the girls who were about 17-years old. One of the
torturers soaked her bra with oil and ignited it and, while she cried
out, another drove a thin iron rod into her vagina until it emerged at
her naval.
In the yard they liquidated entire groups of girls, after they had
selected the prettiest ones for the torture room. The air was filled
with the death cries of many hundreds of girls. But in view of what
happened here, the slaughter outside could be considered more humane.
It was a dreadful fact that not one of the girls brought into the
torture room lost here consciousness.
In their horror all were equal in their expressions. It was always
the same; the begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when their
breasts were cut and their genitals mutilated. Several times the
slaughter was interrupted to sweep out the blood and to clear away the
corpses.
That evening I sank into a severe nerve fever. From then on I lack
any recollection until the moment I awoke in a military hospital.
German troops had recaptured Neustettin temporarily, and had liberated
us. As I learned later, approximately 2,000 girls were murdered during
the first three days of the first round of Russian occupation."
Topaz
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
Topaz
"Anything good in Western civilization is said to have been stolen
from Black Africa including the English language. Professors claim
that Egyptians were blacks and that Aristotle stole his ideas from the
Egyptian library in Alexandria. The "distinguished scholars" who make
these claims are not sufficiently learned to know that the library was
built after the death of Aristotle. One know-nothing, Martin Bernal,
at Cornell (of course) ignores the Mycenaen, Achaean, Dorian and
Ionian wells of ancient Greek culture in
order to attribute the origins of Greek culture to Africa.
The white kids who attend Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell,
Stanford, Michigan, University of California, Duke, wherever, are
enculturated into a pathology of guilt over evils allegedly
perpetrated by their forebears. They are brainwashed into accepting
unequal rights and limitations on their speech as atonements for the
sins of their fathers. Those who resist are sentenced to "sensitivity
training," accused of various harassment crimes, and expelled...
"Academics have buried Western civilization under a mountain of
lies. The great books are not burned, but they are discredited with
the charge that the great thinkers in the past were apologists for a
"white hegemonic order."
The erasing of our culture progresses rapidly. Several years ago
it came to light that students in an Illinois public school were being
taught that the ancient Egyptians were blacks who flew among the
pyramids until whites arrived and killed the blacks who could fly. The
reasons given for teaching this nonsense was to improve the
self-esteem of black children and to explain to them why they don't
live in the big houses."
Paul Craig Roberts is a columnist for The Washington Times and is
nationally syndicated.
Topaz
wrote:
>
>If you were more intelligent, Topie, you'd never keep running this
>piece. Any fool knows that there were few countries *less* prepared for
>war in the decade leading up to WWII than the U.S.
How would the fools know that? Did their Jewish controlled TV and
schools tell them that? Anyway it sounds more like you just made it
up. Jews feel free to do that all the time. And then the honest people
have to do all the research to find out the truth.
> Any fool could tell
>you that Germany *was* mobiling for war and that before the decade was
>out, she'd start invading her neighbors.
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War.
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe...
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so...
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw...
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
>
>I can easily deny that young American boys were receiving military
>training in 1933. I've known too many who were kids during that time.
>
>Then your character says that Germany won't go to war. The only problem
>with that statement is that Germany did invade her neighbors.
>
>This piece was filled with lies.
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War.
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe...
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so...
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw...
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
Iarnrod
> German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
Ironic then that they got BOTH, and in reverse order!
Topaz
"I know you expect no deep expression of feelings, for feelings cannot
be clothed in words. But please imagine this: jobless, without any
money. For two years! For four years! For six years! A desperate
woman, broken in body and soul, with three young children.
How often did I see their hungry eyes looking toward me with vain
expectation. Nothing is more tortuous than such looks from children.
My faith in him, the fanatical fighter, was what kept me and mine from
what lured us - and anyone else in our situation - Suicide!
And today?
A happy mother who is always singing with her children. No one can see
in her the miserable, desperate woman she once was. Instead of three
unhappy hollow-cheeked children, four little devils making noise far
and wide.
Look at them! There may be families with better behaved children, but
none with children as cheerful and happy! That is what the F�hrer
means to me and mine.
I turned my back very early to a foreign worldview because it left my
whole life meaningless. The F�hrer gave me his worldview a firm place
to stand, for it is nothing but a knowledge of the eternal laws that
are behind the universe.
His deeds are a joyful fulfillment of these laws. His successes do not
seem to me, as one hears all too often, the result of good luck,
rather as the natural consequences of his nature. This faith, no, this
certainty, enables me to understand the F�hrer when his actions would
otherwise require blind confidence.
Such obvious confidence is the most wonderful feeling that I can
imagine. Admiration? Recognition? Thanks? They are nothing when
compared to the full understanding of a people of 80 million for the
mission of its F�hrer. That alone would be crowning of his sacrificial
struggle.
This fulfillment of this wish is my prayer for the F�hrer."
Fred. Ch., Poppelau
"The F�hrer is everything to us, he is our faith, security and hope.
As a bearer of the blood medal, I have always believed in this man,
who guided and inspired us, who led us in the fight for Germany's
greatness. We, me, my wife and our seven children, believe only in
him, Adolf Hitler. Is there a belief more understandable, more real,
more natural than this?
Has the F�hrer not done everything for us that one could do for the
good of a family? Did he not give me a job and the ability to decently
feed and clothe my family? Has he not given my children a future that
no other country could so easily give?
The F�hrer is with us in every situation! Look, sometimes the world is
hard on a family. There are difficult situations that cannot be
overcome. In just such hours I go to my living room, and there is a
picture of my F�hrer.
I look Adolf Hitler in the face and remember his great struggle, his
great will and accomplishments, and my miserable mood is gone and
thinking of the F�hrer gives me new strength.
How can I fail when I see the greatness in and around Adolf Hitler?
My children know the F�hrer as the man who rules all, arranges all,
who built their world. The F�hrer is the embodiment of what people had
such difficulty describing to us children before. But this is the
enormous difference: The F�hrer moves among the people so that one can
celebrate him, so that our love for him is rewarded through his ever
new deeds.
The F�hrer is hope for us in every situation. Look, my dear comrade,
according to the F�hrer's own words, raising seven children is a great
responsibility to the state and a holy duty.
To form these young souls, to raise them to be decent adults, is such
a wonderful task only because the F�hrer has given us the sure
foundations that are necessary. He is our hope, for only through his
generous measures are we with many children also able to "lead an
decent life," as anyone should be able to do. He protects our strength
through the NSV, through subventions for children, through the support
the state gives women and children, through the high status he gave
children.
Once people mocked those with many children. Today people honor them.
Now my wife and I have become respected members of the state. That is
why we have such hope for the future of our children, for the F�hrer
has provided all that is necessary for them so that they too will be
able to establish families and contribute to the security and
protection of the great Fatherland.
Is it not wonderful to know what a wonderful future awaits our
children. One cannot but remember our own youth during the postwar
period, during the inflation, the days of hunger and so much that had
terrible effects on our youth and development.
Our children have no fears of such things, for they know that our
F�hrer plans everything, foresees everything, and prepares the best
for us.
Is it not obvious why the F�hrer means everything to us?"
Toni Dominik Sch., Unterammergau
"I can still remember the first time I saw and heard the F�hrer in
1920 in the Zirkus Krone in Munich. This was the introduction: "Adolf
Hitler will speak!" A somewhat slight young man stood before me, with
a short coat, soft collar and crumpled tie, poorly clothed. I was
curious to hear what this man had to say to me.
As I heard his voice, the passion of his words (something unheard of
at the time), the growing tension of his words, it became clear to me:
This man or no one! To this day, this inner feeling has not left me.
The greatness of this man, his deeds, his historic successes seem
enormous to me. But yet I always see him as a man of the people, one
of us in my mind's eye. It fills me with pride that Providence choice
one of our brothers to fulfill German history.
I honor the great figures of German history, but my feelings for the
F�hrer are different. I believe that love is the best word to describe
them.
One of us, who came from the people, has done amazing deeds, yet
remained the same from the first day I saw him until today.
I admire this man so much that I would defend him even if he were in
the wrong, but he cannot be wrong since he is truth and justice
themselves."
Gr. F., Munich
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
> To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
>Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
>idleness, if for no worse reason."
Who do you think controls the company that publishes this book?
[chuckle]
You fucking retard.
Klaus Schadenfreude
> German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
That's good. Are you going to kill yourself before Simon comes to get
you?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>"The F�hrer is everything to us, he is our faith, security and hope.
>As a bearer of the blood medal, I have always believed in this man,
>who guided and inspired us, who led us in the fight for Germany's
>greatness. We, me, my wife and our seven children, believe only in
>him, Adolf Hitler. Is there a belief more understandable, more real,
>more natural than this?
This guy sounds like a real fucking loser. Are ALL of you this
pathetic?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
> "Anything good in Western civilization is said to have been stolen
>from Black Africa including the English language.
Beautifully done straw man, bravo!
________
Hitler's long-concealed secret heterosexual fantasy has been exposed
by the systematic analysis and correlation of the three thousand odd
metaphors he uses in Mein Kampf. The results of this study were later
confirmed by the testimony of one who "claims to know." It is not
necessary to describe its peculiar features here; suffice to say that
the sexual pattern has resulted from the fusion of (i) a primitive
excretory soiling tendency, and (ii) a passive masochistic tendency
(hypertrophy of the feminine component in his makeup). The second
element (masochism) derives much of its strength from an unconscious
need for punishment, a tendency which may be expected in one who has
assiduously repressed, out of swollen pride, the submissive reactions
(compliance, cooperation, payment of debts, expression of gratitude,
acknowledgement of errors,apology, confession, atonement) which are
required of everybody who would adaptively participate in social life.
While Hitler consciously overstrives to assert his infinite
superiority, nature instinctively corrects the balance by imposing an
erotic pattern that calls for infinite self-abasement.
Dave Heil
> German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
There is every reliable indication that your statement is incorrect.
They surrendered in droves. Almost none opted for death.
> They knew the
> allies were subhuman monsters:
...and we know you're are a regular liar in these newsgroups.
Dave Heil
> "Academics have buried Western civilization under a mountain of
> lies.
So you cry, "down with the academics!"
> The great books are not burned, but they are discredited with
> the charge that the great thinkers in the past were apologists for a
> "white hegemonic order."
Nazi Germany burned mountains of books, Topie. Who are you trying to kid?
Dave Heil
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:51:58 +0000, Dave Heil <k8...@frontiernet.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> If you were more intelligent, Topie, you'd never keep running this
>> piece. Any fool knows that there were few countries *less* prepared for
>> war in the decade leading up to WWII than the U.S.
>
> How would the fools know that?
Good point. After all, the news never filtered down to you so not *all*
the fools got the information.
> Did their Jewish controlled TV and
> schools tell them that?
Are Catholic schools run by Jews?
We seem to be short of Jews in my county. I don't think we have any
living here or sitting on our county school board. We've have to import
some for them to control our schools. The one radio station is run by
Protestants. How does that work out?
> Anyway it sounds more like you just made it
> up. Jews feel free to do that all the time.
Are you then admitting that you, yourself are Jewish? I've never seen
such a case of self-loathing!
> And then the honest people
> have to do all the research to find out the truth.
That's what I've been providing. You don't like it a bit, you evil
little bastard.
>> Any fool could tell
>> you that Germany *was* mobilizing for war and that before the decade was
>> out, she'd start invading her neighbors.
<snip of another tired, inaccurate cut-and-paste job from Topaz>
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Topaz wrote:
>
>> "Academics have buried Western civilization under a mountain of
>> lies.
>
>So you cry, "down with the academics!"
Absolutely. Topaz's hero Goebbels deplored people who actually
thought- even more so those who thought for a living.
_____________________
"Intellectual activity is a danger to the
building of character."
-Goebbels
JMcVie
Uh, I just bought the company from my wife... who happens to be in
Taiwan, as we speak.
"NOBOOKSBURNED.COM"
JMcVie
Like "Topaz" could ever become a leader! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
That Yutz couldn't even lead TMT and his "army" of no-brainers, to my
house at 318 Sunnyside Terrace, 08807!
And by the by, "TMT" ( I know yer reading this) the _nearest_ police
station to me is at 24 S Bridge St, Somerville, NJ '
http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=40.603439&lon=-74.587338&zoom=12&tt=police&tp=1&gid2=11014382
The phone number is 911!
That's the number I will call to have your carcass carried away when you
attempt to take my stuff.... like you said.
Pardon me if I have to drag your carcass out and away before your goo
stains my stuff... OK?
Topaz
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honor which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
Topaz
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Tim Miller
> Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
>
You STILL can't answer why anyone should care...
Why IS that?
Topaz
Epitaph for the Tory Party
(Tories are like the Republicans in the USA.)
John Tyndall lays bare the failings of the Tories
Peter Hitchens, writing in The Spectator magazine on the 4th October,
carried out one of the most devastating demolitions of the Tory Party
published in the mainstream media in modern times. Hitchens, whose
mother is Jewish and who takes a generally 'kosher' position on Middle
Eastern and racial matters, will never be an ally of organised British
Nationalism, least of all a friend of the BNP. Nevertheless, his
contributions to the growing political enlightenment in the world of
British journalism must be fairly acknowledged. His Spectator article,
titled 'A party split from top to toe', also published in abridged
form in The Mail on Sunday on October 5th, was a genuine tour de
force, and it will have given no comfort to those who still
complacently hold onto the hope that some kind of 'reformist' movement
in the ranks of Conservatism can rescue it from its slide to oblivion.
Said Hitchens in his opening words:-
'No power on earth can sustain an idea whose time has gone. Can we all
please stop pretending that the Conservative Party is worth saving or
keeping, or that it can ever win another election? This delusion is an
obstacle to the creation of a proper pro-British movement, neither
bigoted nor politically correct, which is the only hope of ending the
present one-party state. The continued existence of the Tory Party as
a bogeyman with which to frighten dissenters is one of the few things
that holds together the equally bankrupt Labour Party. Without it, the
frequent Blairite cry of "If you don't back me, the Thatcherites will
return" could no longer be used. The Conservative Party, in all its
shambling ineptitude and pathos, is also a major reason for the growth
of the Liberal Democrats, grateful recipients of the
anyone-but-the-Tories vote, which is cast for Charles Kennedy, not
because of what he is but because of what he is not.'
Of course, no one should expect a journalist in Hitchen's league to
call, by implication, for the creation of a pro-British movement
outside the Tory Party without inserting the words 'neither bigoted'
immediately afterwards - perish the thought that he could be calling
for something like the BNP! But since the BNP does not qualify for the
description 'bigoted' anyway this can be ignored; bigotry, by
definition, is a blind commitment to an idea or preference that defies
reason and facts; our own commitment to racial nationalism is based on
an objective observation of the world around us. We can therefore
overcome disqualification from the kind of movement for which Mr.
Hitchens calls, even if in his mind we should be disqualified.
Meanwhile we should be grateful to Mr Hitchens for echoing a truth
which was highlighted in this very magazine in January 1992, when the
present writer said:-
'It is the Tories who again and again have acted as a barrier to the
formation of an effective combination of patriotic forces in Britain
which might, by obtaining political power, reverse the tide of
national betrayal, retreat, surrender, humiliation and decline...'
Hitchens went on to say of Conservatives of today, with particular
reference to the younger elements who perhaps like to dream of
political careers ahead of them:-
'They do not like to think, and generally refuse to do so because they
believe it is safer to avoid such dangerous activity. This is not
unreasonable, given the irreconcilable forces that vie with each other
for mastery. The few who do think tend to ponder their own survival
and seek to suck up to the spirit of the age. The spirit of the age is
not very impressed, since it already has quite enough parties devoted
to it and suspects that Conservatives do not really have their hearts
in the sexual and cultural revolution.'
And he continued:-
'This has actually been going on for a long time, but polite people
have preferred not to mention it. Many let the Tories off during the
Cold war. They ignored their cowardice over the big social issues,
their failure to save or restore grammar schools, to stand up for
marriage, to understand the European issue, to preserve, protect or
defend anything old, beloved or beautiful...'
Craven surrenders
Safer. Sucking up. Cowardice. These are the key words that stand out
from the above passages, and they get to the very heart of what is
wrong with modern Conservatism much more fundamentally than
condemnations of wrong turns in policy. What are the latter but craven
surrenders to fashionable ideology rather than genuinely thought out
solutions to the ills of the country? And why the surrenders? Because,
simply, Tories on the way up have tended, almost exclusively, to be
interested in self-promotion in their chosen profession rather than in
ideas or principles, let alone in public duty. They have jostled for
places on the dung heap of modern mainstream politics never seeming to
consider that they were wrong to have landed themselves there to begin
with, that there might be better, nobler political locations: grander
instruments for service to which they might dedicate themselves.
All this is a reflection on the character of today's politician - the
Tory politician as much as the politicians of the rival parties,
indeed perhaps even more so because in the Tory case it involves, much
more than with the others, a preparedness to jettison principles of
traditional party faith in return for a seat on the gravy train. The
gravy train of mainstream British politics has for more than half a
century been moving irresistibly and irrevocably left - towards
globalism, internationalism, social and cultural liberalism,
multi-racialism and everything else sheltering under the banner of
political correctness. That is the course that all must take if they
are going to pursue rewarding careers within the system. This 'spirit
of the age', as Hitchens has termed it, has gripped the Tory Party
thoroughly by the throat, and it demands obedience, subservience and
total loyalty - failure to show which is likely to cast the political
tyro out into the wilderness, career smashed, place at the feeding
trough relinquished and reputation besmirched beyond repair.
And the trouble is that there is almost no one in that party, let
alone in the others, who is prepared to risk such a fate - even if to
do so is to be politically and morally in the right. We now have a
situation in Britain not dissimilar to that in Soviet Russia, where
there was a certain established 'orthodoxy' to which every
office-holder had to genuflect or at least not dare to challenge
openly, even though national and world events were discrediting that
orthodoxy more and more by the day. We have a vast network of paid
apparatchiks going about their business in the service of a lie - and
which more and more of them, in their own hearts, know to be a lie.
But this fact does not disturb them, least of all induce them to break
free from the racket and ally themselves with the forces of truth.
That would be to lay themselves open to certain uncomfortable hazards,
of which the loss of their offices and jobs would be the most certain
of all. Just a little way behind would be the bogey of social
ostracism - no more invitations to dinner in Islington or the genteel
country homes where the liberal elite congregate and flatter each
other. So soaked up in this demi-monde of comfortable and pleasant
national twilight has our political class become that no existence
outside it is bearable even to think of.
The cowardice of a ruling class on the run
These are, of course, the classic symptoms of cowardice: in this case
the cowardice of a ruling class on the run because the stomach to
fight and rebel simply isn't there. And here is the absolutely vital
point that must be understood if we are to grapple with this
phenomenon: no amount of persuasion that current policies are leading
to national disaster, that there must be a better way politically,
will move these people to change course. Even if this 'better way' is
trimmed of all its rough edges, refined to the nth degree, presented
in words so mild and dainty that no one could reasonably object to
them, it will be to no avail. Conversion presupposes a backbone that
is wholly lacking. The intellect to perceive the truth and good sense
of our message may well be present; but the character needed to
embrace it does not exist.
The very rationale of the soft, liberal section of the Tory Party that
is now in the ascendant betrays the defeatist mindset by which the
party has been gripped. It says that the Tories cannot possibly hope
to win another election unless they come to terms with the new age of
multi-culturalism, permissiveness and 'gay' rights - essentially that
they become more Blairite than Tony Blair. This completely alters the
whole meaning and purpose of fighting elections. A Party is supposed
to contest elections and win power in order to put itself in a
position to carry out a programme that is fundamentally different from
that of the party presently in office - an aim that presumes that the
present programme is utterly wrong. If the purpose of winning power is
not to change that programme fundamentally but only to tinker with it
at the edges, why on earth not let the present gang get on with it and
just make a few mild corrective suggestions from the sidelines? What
on earth is the point of defeating one party of liberals, globalists,
multi-racialists and disciples of political correctness merely in
order to replace it with another of almost exactly the same type?
The only possible answer can be that the purpose is not really a
national change of direction at all but merely a change in the
personnel employed in top management, of jobs for one set of boys and
girls rather than another set of boys and girls. In other words, the
driving force behind all political activity is that of career, office,
personal power and the enjoyment of being in the news, not any
powerful ideals for the betterment of land and people.
A system, a body politic, where this has become the norm attracts into
the profession the very worst types for getting anything done. It
attracts careerists, egotists, self-servers, fame-seekers,
brown-nosers, occupational parasites and above all cowards. In short,
it puts character at a discount - and indeed reacts with suspicion,
not to say hostility, to anyone displaying the slightest glimmering of
that attribute. Yet at a time of national crisis it is character in
our ruling circles that is needed more than at any other time. And if
a reforming movement is to be created which will one day clear out the
augean stables and install better men and women in office, men and
women who will halt the sickening spiral of national decline and plant
the seeds of national resurgence, that movement must place character
in a position of absolute paramountcy over everything. Without
character at the top, nothing valuable can ever be done. All the
finest manifestos that the human brain can devise, all the high-flown
theories, all the brilliant achievements of intellect, will be of no
use unless people of the necessary character are installed in power to
give effect to them.
And that means not only carrying out the positive measures that the
nation needs for its recovery but standing up with courage and
resolution against the massed battalions of vested interest that
undoubtedly will be mobilised to prevent such measures; it means
defending, not abandoning the defences; it means fighting, not running
away.
Enduring fallacy
There has long been a fallacy enjoying support in nationalist circles
which holds that if members of the public are reluctant to embrace our
political beliefs and join parties like the BNP it is because those
beliefs are presented too stridently and uncompromisingly, and that if
we water them down so that they become just a tame version of the
original, little distinguishable from the politics of say,
'right-wing' Conservatism, the hitherto reluctant recruits will throw
aside their reluctance and come aboard. This is to misunderstand
completely the real reasons for such people's non-involvement. It is
not because nationalist policies as we have been presenting them are
too 'extreme' too 'harsh', too unpalatable to people's consciences; it
is because those people simply lack the inner moral fibre to identify
themselves, at least for the moment, with opinions that are
'unfashionable' and might get them into trouble with their friends,
their neighbours and, perhaps most importantly of all, their
employers.
If policies are trimmed so as to sound 'nicer', 'gentler', more
'moderate', those same people will continue to find excuses for not
joining because we have not touched one iota upon the real source of
their drawing back; we have not addressed the reality of their
failings of character. And in the meantime, in the course of diluting
our beliefs (or at least the public exposition of them) we stand every
good chance of alienating our natural and solid constituency of
hard-core nationalist loyalists, who will defect to organisations in
which they see firmer ideological resolve, or else drop out of
political activity altogether.
We should certainly not abandon the quest for public acceptability and
go to the extreme of embracing political associations that cut no ice
with contemporary Britons, associations that are linked to the nutty
fringe who engage in politics merely out of exhibitionism and
self-indulgence; we should continue with the strategy of building the
BNP into a mass movement, contesting elections and winning them - now
at the local government level and tomorrow at the parliamentary one.
We should continue bidding for the support of mainstream Britain, as
we have long been doing.
Casting away delusion
But we should cast away the self-delusion that there is a massive wave
of participant support from the professional middle classes just
waiting to flow our way if we will moderate our policies a little
more, trim a little more and offer a little more in the way of juicy
morsels to 'liberal' opinion by parading token Blacks and Asians in
our campaign publicity. This will do nothing to add to the votes we
are already getting, nor to swell the ranks of the members we are
already recruiting. You see, where there are people in these classes
who have the character to take the plunge and involve themselves in
the BNP they will do so on the strength of our policies as we have
been proclaiming them for at least the past decade - policies which
events are proving more and more to be right. Where such people do not
have that character they will continue to reject us, even if we weaken
those policies till we are blue in the face and dress them up in the
most sugary coating that spin-doctors can devise. Such people will
come aboard proudly and openly when newspapers like The Times and The
Daily Telegraph give us their public endorsement and when the
occupations in which they earn their livings are no longer in the grip
of establishment power and patronage. That will take a political
earthquake in this country which at the moment is completely beyond
our capability to bring about. In the meantime, there is a
constituency out there consisting of large numbers of strong, sturdy,
patriotic British people whom we can win over by continuing to win
seats on councils, increasing our credibility and attracting ever
greater serious public notice. Many of them are people who have turned
their backs on the Tory Party precisely because of its cowardice and
flabbiness and are looking for something closer to the John Bull
tradition. We are not going to win them over by looking and talking
like the party they have rejected.
The reason, above all others, why the Tory Party is sunk in
irremediable decline is that, in its human content, the character to
stand up and fight is lacking. The weak and watery policies that have
distinguished the Tories, whether in government or opposition, are not
the result of intellectual error - though strength of intellect in the
party is sparse enough; they are the result of Tory leaders shirking
policies they know to be necessary and right because the exertion of
character needed to adopt and defend them is just too much. Says
Hitchens:-
'The wretched Major years, in which Britain experienced its first New
Labour government without realising it, are a warning to anyone who
imagines that a Tory victory at the next election would end our
national decline or reverse the damage done by Blairism. The
Conservative Party has had ineffectual, directionless leaders since
1990 because it is an ineffectual and directionless party. It is idle
and silly to imagine that a different leader might change things now.'
The one bone which many readers will pick with the above assertion
lies in the words "since 1990." However, the writer's point is
powerfully enough made. But why is the Tory Party so ineffectual and
directionless? Precisely because of the moral calibre of the people
comprising it - not, perhaps, all the people at the grass roots but
most certainly the people who have dominated its upper tiers for
several decades.
Smooth faces and dead eyes
And there seems no sign that this is about to change. Run your gaze
over the people in the platform party at any Tory conference, and then
focus on those in the front rows of the audience within range of the
TV cameras. You will see lots of young men with smooth faces, dead
eyes and personalities bordering on the effeminate. You will search in
vain for fellows who have the aspect of Royal Marines or Paras, or who
might look at home in the England rugby XV. Then if you study their
elders the impression is no different; the hair is just greyer or less
plentiful and the appearance of tiredness even more pronounced. The
whole bunch have the look of people who will not fight for anything.
The immigrant invasion of Britain has reached flood-tide proportions.
The change in the demographic look of our towns and cities is taking
place at such a frightening speed that we face the complete extinction
of our national identity within a generation or two.
Meanwhile, crime headlines and statistics, together with the facts of
educational non-achievement, make clear to all that the myth of human
'equality', and the dream of successful multi-racial society, have
gone up in smoke never to be resurrected. These realities underline
the overwhelming truth that the immigrant avalanche is in danger of
destroying Britain more completely and permanently than could have
happened through any military defeat in our long history.
Yet what have our political 'leaders' been doing while this disaster
has been unfolding? They have been cowering in the funk-holes looking
the other way and pretending that nothing has been happening-when they
have not been bounding forth to embrace the invaders with welcoming
arms. Do these 'leaders' in particular the 'leaders' of Conservatism,
who represent a party and creed theoretically opposed to the
'equality' fantasy and committed to defending the national frontiers -
really not know what is taking place under their very eyes? Can they
really claim ignorance of the implications of the present open-door
policy? The supposition just is not credible. They do know, and they
do nothing. Why? Because the incestuous, tight little, safe little
world of Westminster politics and its outposts in the constituencies
around the country is too precious for them to risk giving up. Their
unblemished reputations in the columns of the national newspapers are
gilt-edge investments without which, politically, they would starve
and freeze to death. The social and commercial whirl of the liberal
establishment, with its rewarding goodies for those who bow and scrape
and conform - sleeping city directorships, TV appearance fees, book
royalties, the ever-addictive narcotic of popular celebrity - all such
things are more important to them than patriotic duty, their
obligation to yet unborn millions of their nation and race.
With such people, nothing can be done or ever will be done. Policy
arguments are futile because, to them, policies are expendable
commodities to be taken up or abandoned according to what serves
career and personal interest. The metamorphosis of Michael Portillo
from the Tory Party's rightwing Rambo to its dripping wet liberal
pussycat says all that has to be said; and Portillo is not untypical
of the party as a whole, merely the most ostentatious of its political
acrobats: first facing one way and then in a short time the exact
opposite way as opportunism calls. A less spectacular but equally
substantial about-turn was that of the leader himself, who when the
rising member for Chingford a few years ago was making noises of a
distinctly traditionalist flavour but later, when his nostrils scented
the leadership in the offing, made an abject surrender from almost all
his previous positions and became the party's lead singer in the
chorus of 'inclusiveness'.
It cannot be said often enough and with force enough: our movement,
the BNP, if it is to serve its founding purpose and act as the
instrument for the salvation of Britain, must reject utterly
everything that the Tory and other parties in Westminster represent -
not only in the policies they espouse but in the character of those
who conduct and lead them. We must be as different from them as would
beings from another planet. We must bring the toughness and courage of
our fighting ancestors, the heroes of Trafalgar, Waterloo and Rorke's
Drift, into the arena of politics where such things have been so
lamentably lacking in the sad and shameful era of modern Britain.
None of this is to suggest that we should proclaim our beliefs in
crude and ill-mannered language, that we should not speak and behave
with dignity in all our campaigns for popular support. But it is to
state that if we try to compete with the other parties in the game of
compromise and weakness, showing ourselves not as crusaders for race
and nation but as mere 'politicians', jostling with them for places on
the merry-go-round of career advancement and personal reward, we will
assuredly lose - because it is a game at which they are far more
practised and expert than we.
The leader the product of the party
As far as the Tories are concerned, the current media obsession with
the leadership issue completely ignores what is really wrong. Duncan
Smith most certainly is useless, but of immediate alternatives there
is nobody any better. It is not because of Duncan Smith that the party
is in its present terminal illness; it is because of the illness that
it gets leaders like Duncan Smith.
Hitchens concluded his Spectator article with these words:-
'The Tory Party is a train wreck, not a train, an obstacle rather than
a vehicle. There are many good and intelligent people trapped in the
twisted ruins who would flourish if only they were released, but are
now prevented from doing so by a pointless discipline. There are many
voters currently unable to vote Tory even while holding their noses,
who long for a party that speaks for them and the country. Such a
party cannot begin to grow until the Tory delusion is dispelled and
this movement, whose time is gone, splits and disappears. Let it be
soon.'
And hear, hear to most of that! When the train is wrecked beyond
repair, what is needed is not a new driver but the scrap-metal squad.
But let us not imagine that the good and intelligent people of whom
Hitchens speaks will in themselves be enough. Their goodness and
intelligence must be harnessed to strength of character. Otherwise the
'movement' of which he also speaks will go the same way as the party
it replaces.
And the movement does not need creating; it is already here, though
Mr. Hitchens will not wish to acknowledge it. May it retain the
toughness and resolve which has taken it thus far.
Spearhead Online
Topaz
FORTY-FIVE years ago, I witnessed an atrocity: the deliberate
starvation of German POWs by our own army. History, written by the
victors, suppressed all news of this atrocity until James Bacque, a
Canadian author, published his brilliant expose, OTHER LOSSES. This
book is a best seller in Canada, a sensation in Europe, yet is
virtually unavailable (censored?) in the U.S. Our major booksellers
told me their distributors are not handling it. When I prevailed upon
a small, independent bookstore to order direct from Canada, the
publisher told them they would be the only store in New York State to
carry the book. This in 'the land of the free'?"
Fortunately, Pat Buchanan called attention to OTHER LOSSES in his
January 10, 1990 column. He wrote:
"Conclusion: the U.S. Army killed ten times as many Germans in POW
camps as we did on battlefields from Normandy to V.E. day. (German
POWs) had their rations cut below survival level until they were
dying
at rates up to 30% of exposure, starvation and neglect... Red Cross
food trains were turned back and U.S. food shipments sat on the
docks...One French officer said the U.S. camps reminded him of Dachau
and Buchenwald...The book blames Eisenhower. 'The German is a beast,'
Ike had written... But that was not how the Canadians and British
felt, who treated their prisoners justly...It was not the view of
General Mark Clark, nor of Patton...Ignoring the book is not enough."
Pat Buchanan's courageous column inspired me to help end the cover-up
of the atrocity I had witnessed. I wrote letters to several
newspapers
which were, of necessity, short and incomplete. Now I would like to
finally free more of my painful memories, hoping to be heard, so that
this will help us to acknowledge our share in the "banality of evil",
cleansing ourselves with the truth. Perhaps we as a nation may then
put this behind us with some integrity and with some hope for
redemption.
In October 1944, at age eighteen, I was drafted into the army while a
student at the NYS College of Forestry. Largely due to the "Battle of
the Bulge", my training was cut short, my furlough cut in half, and I
was then immediately sent overseas. Upon arrival in Le Havre, France,
we were quickly loaded into boxcars and shipped to the front. By the
time we reached it, I had developed mononucleosis severely enough to
be sent to a hospital in Belgium.
By the time I left the hospital, the unit I had trained with in
Spartenburg, South Carolina was so deeply into Germany that I warn
placed in a "repo depo" (a replacement depot) despite my protests. I
then lost interest in which units I was assigned to because
non-combat
units were generally not respected. My separation qualification
record
states that I served mostly with the 14th Infantry Regiment, during
which time I guarded prisoners of war and served as an interpreter.
During my seventeen month stay in Germany, I was transferred to other
outfits also.
In late March or early April 1945, I was assigned to help guard a POW
camp near Andernach along the Rhine. I had four years of high school
German, so I was able to talk to the prisoners, although this was
forbidden.
Gradually, however, I was used as an interpreter and asked to ferret
out the S.S. (I found none.)
In Andernach, between 50,000 and 65,000 prisoners, ranging in age
from
very young teens to very old men, were crowded together in an open
field surrounded by barbed wire. The women were kept in a separate
enclosure which I did not see until later. The men I guarded had no
tents or other shelter, no blankets and many had no coats. Inadequate
numbers of slit trenches were provided for excrement, and so the men
lived and slept in the mud and increasing filth during a cold, wet
spring. Their misery from exposure alone was evident.
It was even more shocking to see them eating grass, sometimes
throwing
it into a tin can containing a thin soup. They told me they did this
hoping to ease their hunger pains. Soon their emaciation was evident.
Dysentery raged and, too weak and crowded to reach the slit trenches,
they were increasingly sleeping in excrement. I saw no sign of
provision for water, so the thin soup was their food and water for
the
day. Some days there was bread, less than a slice each. Other days
there was nothing.
The sight of so many men desperate for food and water, sickening and
dying before our eyes, is indescribable. Even now, I can only think
of
it momentarily.
We had ample food and supplies that could have been shared more
humanely, and we could have offered some medical assistance, but did
nothing. Only the dead were quickly and efficiently taken care of:
hauled away to mass graves.
My outrage reached the point that I protested to my officers, but I
was met with hostility or bland indifference. When pressed, they
explained they were under strict orders from "higher up". No officer
would dare to systematically do this to over 50,000 prisoners if he
felt he was violating general policy and subject to court martial.
The
term "war criminal" was just beginning to come into fashion.
Realizing my protests were useless, I asked a friend working in the
kitchen if he could slip me some extra food for the prisoners. He too
repeated that they were under strict orders to severely ration the
prisoners' food, and that these orders came from "higher up". But he
said they had more food than they knew what to do with and would
sneak
me some.
When I threw this food over the barbed wires to the prisoners I was
caught and threatened with imprisonment. I repeated the "offense",
and
one officer threatened to shoot me. I naturally assumed this was a
bluff, but I began to have some doubts after I encountered a captain
on a hill above the Rhine shooting down at a group of German civilian
women with his .45 caliber pistol. When I asked, "Why?" he mumbled,
"Target practice," and fired until his pistol was empty. I saw the
women running for cover, but, at that distance, couldn't tell if any
had been hit.
This is when I more fully realized I was dealing with some cold-
blooded killers filled with moralistic hatred. They considered the
Germans sub-human and worthy of extermination; another expression of
the downward spiral of racism. Articles in the G.I. newspaper, Stars
&
Stripes, played up the Nazi concentration camps, complete with
photographs of emaciated bodies; this amplified our self-righteous
cruelty and made it easier to imitate behavior we were supposed to
oppose. Also, I think, soldiers not exposed to combat were trying to
prove how tough they were by taking it out on the prisoners and
civilians. At least, many combat soldiers told me later they would
not
have tolerated this, for they combined hatred with respect for a
courageous enemy.
The prisoners I spoke to were mostly simple farmers and workingmen,
as
ignorant, albeit nationalistic, as many of our own troops. I heard
many versions of "my country, right or wrong, my country," which we
still hear in our own country today.
As time went on, many of them lapsed into a Zombie-like state of
listlessness. Others, maddened by thirst, tried to escape in a
desperate or suicidal fashion, running through open fields in broad
daylight towards the Rhine to quench their thirst. They were mowed
down.
Some prisoners were extremely eager for cigarettes, saying they took
the edge off their hunger. Accordingly, some enterprising G.I.
"Yankee
traders" were acquiring hordes of wrist watches and rings in exchange
for handfuls of cigarettes or less. When I began throwing cartons of
cigar-ettes to the prisoners to ruin this trade, I found myself
threatened by rank-and-file G.I.s also. At least this taught me an
indelible lesson: how wrong majorities and authorities can be.
A bright spot in this gloomy picture came, oddly enough, one night
when I was put on the "graveyard shift", from two to four A.M.
Actually, there was a graveyard on the uphill side of this enclosure,
not many yards away. My superiors had forgotten to give me a
flashlight and I hadn't bothered to ask, being disgusted with the
whole situation by that time. It was a fairly bright night and I soon
became aware of a prisoner crawling under the wires to the graveyard.
We were supposed to shoot escapees on sight, so I started to get up
to
warn him to get back. Suddenly I noticed another prisoner crawling
from the graveyard back to the enclosure. They were risking their
lives to get to the graveyard for something; I had to investigate.
When I entered the gloom of this shrubby, tree-shaded cemetery, I
never felt more vulnerable, but somehow curiosity kept me going.
Despite my caution, I tripped over the legs of someone in a prone
position. Whipping my rifle around while stumbling and trying to
regain composure of mind and body, I soon was relieved I hadn't
reflexively fired. The figure sat up, moving erratically. Gradually I
could see the beautiful but terror-stricken face of a woman with a
picnic basket nearby. German civilians were not allowed to feed, nor
even come near, the prisoners, so I quickly assured her I approved of
what she was doing, not to be afraid, and that I would leave the
graveyard to get out of the way, telling no one.
I left the graveyard as quickly as possible and sat down, leaning
against a tree at the edge CF the cemetary to be inconspicuous and
not
frighten the prisoners. I imagined then, and often since, what it
would be like to be a prisoner under those conditions and meet a
beautiful woman with a picnic basket. I never saw her again, but I
have never forgotten her face.
While I watched, more prisoners crawled to and from the enclosure. I
saw they were dragging food back to their comrades and could only
admire their courage and devotion. As I walked back to my quarters at
the end of my shift, a nightingale and I were singing -- both felt a
touch of spring.
(I originally did not intend to reveal the following incident, for it
moves into a realm termed "mystical". However, for me, it was an
extremely significant experience, changing my life, providing a light
no darkness can extinguish. It must be told, hoping it will foster
understanding.)
On May 8, V.E. day, I decided to celebrate with some prisoners I was
guarding who were baking bread, meager amounts of which the other
prisoners occasionally received. This group had all the bread they
could eat, and shared the jovial mood generated by the end of the
war.
We all thought we would be going home soon, a pathetic hope on their
part. We were in what was to become the French zone, and I later
witnessed the brutality of the French soldiers when we transferred
our
prisoners to them for their slave labor camps (see below).
However, on this day we were happy.
After chatting with them about the potentials of peace for the rest
of
our lives, I decided to risk a gesture of trust that objectively
would
seem foolish. I emptied my rifle and stood it in the corner. They
tested me further by asking to play with it, and I agreed.
Intuitively
I felt I could rely on their sense of honor not to attack me, for
they
knew they too were being tested. This thoroughly 'broke the ice', and
soon we were singing songs we taught each other or I had learned in
high school German ("Du, du, liegst mir im Herzen"). Out of
gratitude,
they secretly baked a small sweet bread and insisted I take it,
explaining it was the only possible gift they had left to offer.
Expressing my gratitude with a lump in my throat, I put it in my
tight
"Eisenhower jacket" so I could sneak it back to my barracks. I later
found an opportunity to eat it outside.
Never had bread tasted more delicious, nor conveyed to me a deeper
sense of communion while eating it. A wonderful feeling pervaded me,
gently opening me to an intimation of the Oneness of all Being.
Through those prisoners I sensed the ~cosmic presence of what has
been
called the Christ, Buddha-nature, or, perhaps most aptly, the
Ineffable: cosmically present, but hidden and apparently separate,
until revealed in the wholeness of the giving of the self. Even
within
the horror humans had created, I was taught a path to redemption may
open by taking a first, tentative step in the direction of love,
understanding and forgiveness. This above all the prisoners taught
me:
not only are we all potentially humane humans, there is divinity
within us waiting for us to dissolve the defensive shield of ego. I
was pleased to discover later the words of Matthew 25:34-46,
expressing the potential within prisoners and all who are at our
mercy.
Shortly after this experience I was plunged into even greater horror.
Some of our weak and sickly prisoners were being marched off by
French
soldiers to their camp. The truck we were on first passed another
truck picking up bodies along the side of the road, and then came up
behind a slowly moving column of men. Temporarily we slowed down and
remained behind, perhaps because the driver was as shocked as I was.
The French soldiers were apparently incensed at the poor condition of
our prisoners, not only for labor but for marching to another camp.
Whenever a prisoner staggered or dropped back, the French clubbed him
to death and then dragged him to the side of the road. For many, this
quick death might have been preferable to their prolonged suffering.
Even gas would have been more merciful than our murder by neglect in
our slow 'killing fields'...
Martin Brech
(Adjunct Professor,
Philosophy & Religion,
Mercy College;
Ex-G.I., Finally Free)
Topaz
Dr Joseph Goebbels, Der Angriff, 21 January 1929.
The Jew
by Joseph Goebbels
Everything is discussed openly in Germany, and every German claims the
right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic,
the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a
capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing
dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question.
Discussions happen in public, and where matters are unclear or
confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is
one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate
even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a
scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like
water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at
how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've
been found out."
One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightening
speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any
attempt at defense.
Quickly he turns the attacker's charges back on him, and the attacker
becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be
more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants.
He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the
result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he
has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack. The accused
has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the
dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought
the Jew. That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully
aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the
following radical conclusions:
1. One cannot fight the Jew by positive means. He is a negative, and
this negative must be erased from the German system, or he will
forever corrupt it.
2. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can
hardly prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless.
3. One cannot allow the Jew the same means one would give an honest
opponent, for he is no honorable opponent. He will use generosity and
nobility only to trap his enemy.
4. The Jew has nothing to say about German questions. He is a
foreigner, an alien, who only enjoys the rights of a guest, rights
that he always abuses.
5. The so-called religious morality of the Jews is no morality at all,
rather an encouragement to betrayal. Therefore, they have no claim to
protection from the state.
6. The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only cleverer and
craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically-he follows
entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken
through political means.
7. A Jew cannot insult a German. Jewish slanders are but badges of
honor for a German opponent of the Jews.
8. The more a German person or a German movement opposes the Jew, the
more valuable it is. If someone is attacked by the Jews, that is a
sure sign of his virtue. He who is not persecuted by the Jews, or who
is praised by them, is useless and dangerous.
9. The Jew evaluates German questions from the Jewish standpoint. As a
result, the opposite of what he says must be true.
10. One must either affirm or reject anti-Semitism. He who defends the
Jews harms his own people. One can only be a Jewish lackey or a Jewish
opponent. Opposing the Jews is a matter of personal hygiene.
These principles give the anti-Jewish movement a chance of success.
Only such a movement will be taken seriously by the Jews, only such a
movement will be feared by them.
The fact that he shouts and complains about such a movement therefore
is only a sign that it is right. We are therefore delighted that we
are constantly attacked in the Jewish gazettes. They may shout about
terror. We answer with Mussolini's familiar words: "Terror? Never! It
is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just
as a doctor does to a bacterium.
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.' ...
Tim Miller
> Dr Joseph Goebbels, Der Angriff, 21 January 1929.
>
Until you can tell us WHY anyone should care, we're just
pointing at you and laughing...
Topaz
wrote:
>Topaz wrote:
The Riddle of the Jew's Success
F. Roderich-Stoltheim (T. Fritsch)
This rare and valuable book provides a detailed analysis of Jewish
behavior and thinking. A reprint of the English-language edition of
1927. After Germany's defeat in 1945, this book was banned by the
Allied occupation authorities, and nearly all copies were destroyed.
Written by the influential German publicist Theodor Fritsch, it
appeared under a pen name. This book helps in understanding the scope
and intensity of anti-Jewish feeling in Germany during the 1920s and
1930s.
Here are some quotes:
"When in the year 1890, a petition was sent from the anti-Jewish camp
to a number of Imperial and local authorities, containing the request
that a commission of independent savants should be appointed, whose
duty would be to examine carefully the passages in dispute, in not a
single instance was the request granted. The Prussian Ministry of
Culture dismissed any such step as 'impracticable'. If one compares
the thoroughness with which the morality of the Jesuits has been and
is still discussed in public, one if forced to accept the view, that
the zealous friends of truth and opponents of those, who work in an
obscure and devious manner, know how to restrain their zeal for
enlightenment in a truly remarkable way so far as the Jews are
concerned.
The position is thus a very peculiar one. This much is established:
The German national representative bodies and governments have given
the Jews equal civic rights, and have recognized them as a separate
religious community, without making any inquiry whether the moral
instruction of the Jews is compatible with the welfare of the state."
"Many people consider themselves very clever when they impart advice
to the merchant, who complains he is unable to hold his own against
the Jews: do the same as the Jew! In reality this amounts to the
following: do no recognize any religious motives whatever in your mode
of doing business, and descend to the level of a low money-grubber and
voluptary.
The economic principle of the Jew threatens to trample under foot, in
our time, all the higher principles of life."
Topaz
England's Guilt
by Joseph Goebbels
It is a major error to assume that England's plutocrats slipped into
the war against their will or even against their intentions. The
opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all
the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They
surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal
other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and
this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.
Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the
Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not
support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian
reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help
of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any
measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring
clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of
aggression against Germany.
The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was
traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always
directed its main military might against Germany. It never could
tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by
claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.
Today there is still another reason. The English warmongers conceal
it. It is crassly egotistic. The English prime minister announced the
day the war began that England's goal was to destroy Hitlerism.
However, he defined Hitlerism in a way other than how the English
plutocracy actually sees it. The English warmongers claim that
National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure
against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger
for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality,
however, there is another reason for England's war with Germany. The
English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to
conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England
controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has
never threatened English interests.
So when Chamberlain says that England wants to destroy Hitlerism in
this war, he is in one sense incorrect. But in another sense, he is
speaking the truth. England does want to destroy Hitlerism. It sees
Hitlerism as the present internal state of the Reich, which is a thorn
in the eye of English plutocracy.
England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's
state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest
land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact
the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of
this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished,
socially enslaved and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter
of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs.
Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is
there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums.
Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of
it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly
brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate from making
major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve
capitalist democracy.
Capitalism democracy suffers from every possible modern social
ailment. The Lords and City people can remain the richest people one
earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting
their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own
country.
Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and
modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English
plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy
Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that
have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly
fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English
capitalism.
That is why England declared war on Germany. Since it was accustomed
to letting others fight its wars, it looked to the European continent
to find those ready to fight for England's interests. France was ready
to take on this degrading duty, since the same kind of people ruled
France. They too were ready for war out of egotistic reasons. Western
European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that
rules the world. It declared war on German socialism because it
endangered their capitalist interests.
A similar drama began in 1914. England had more luck during those four
and a half years than it is having today. Europe's nations had no
chance to see what was happening. The nations of Europe today have no
desire to play the same role they played during the World War. England
and France stand alone. Still, England is trying once again to wage
war without making any personal sacrifice. The goal is to blockade
Germany, to gradually bring it to submit by starvation. That is
longstanding English policy. They used it successfully in the
Napoleonic wars, and also during the World War. It would work now as
well, if the German people had not been educated by National
Socialism. National Socialism is immune to English temptations.
English propaganda lies no longer work in Germany. They have gradually
lost their effectiveness in the rest of the world as well, since
German propaganda today reaches far beyond its borders. This time,
English plutocracy will not succeed in driving a wedge between the
German people and their leadership, though that is their goal.
The German nation today is defending not only its honor and
independence, but also the great social accomplishments it has made
through hard and untiring work since 1933. It is a people's state
built on the foundation of justice and economic good sense. In the
past, England always had the advantage of facing a fragmented Germany.
It is only natural that English plutocracy today seeks to split the
German people and make it ripe for new collapse.
English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper
names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people,
only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England
was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England
wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people. But that did not
stop English plutocracy from brutally and relentlessly suppressing the
Boers after that war or the Germans after our defeat.
A child once burned is twice shy. The German people were once victims
of lying English war propaganda. Now it understands the situation. It
has long understood the background of this war. It knows that behind
all English plutocratic capitalism's fine words, its aim is to destroy
Germany's social achievements. We are defending the socialism we have
build in Germany since 1933 with every military, economic and
spiritual means at our disposal. The bald English lies have no impact
on the German people.
English plutocracy is finally being forced to defend itself. In the
past, it always found other nations to fight for it. This time, the
English people must themselves risk their necks for the lords and City
men. They will meet a unified German people of workers, farmers and
soldiers who are prepared to defend their nation with every means at
their disposal.
We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy
forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have
to pay for it.
The whole world is waking up today. It can no longer be ruled by the
capitalist methods of the 19th Century. The peoples have matured. They
will one day deal a terrible blow to the capitalist plutocrats who are
the cause of their misery.
It is no accident that National Socialism has the historical task of
carrying out this reckoning. Plutocracy is collapsing intellectually,
spiritually, and in the not too distant future, militarily. We are
acting consistently with Nietzsche's words: "Give a shove to what is
falling."