Britian

[Topaz]

Everything People Believed About Hitler's Intentions Toward Britain
Was A Myth Created By Churchill
Kevin Myers - Irish Independent (Ireland)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-everything-people-believed-about-hitlers-intentions-toward-britain-was-a-myth-created-by-churchill-3143805.html
... An even vaster falsehood - that in 1940, Hitler wanted to invade
Britain. But he didn't. He actually admired the British Empire ... We
know from the diaries of Lord Halifax, the British foreign minister,
that Hitler offered terms that did not involve German control of
Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the
cabinet ... And far from wanting to continue the war, in June 1940
Hitler ordered 20 percent of his army to be demobilised, in order to
get the German economy going again ... Just about everything that
people believed about Hitler's intentions towards Britain in 1940 --
and still believe today -- was a myth created by Churchill, which he
probably came to believe himself.


http://www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org http://www.bpp.org.uk

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[JAB]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 11:32:50 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>An even vaster falsehood - that in 1940, Hitler wanted to invade
>Britain. But he didn't. He actually admired the British Empire ... We
>know from the diaries of Lord Halifax, the British foreign minister,
>that Hitler offered terms that did not involve German control of
>Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the
>cabinet ...

Uh, once another is under their "toe," there is no end to uni-lateral
modification of original terms.

In previous years of warring, it was about ownership of new land, and
thereby control of it.

[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."

[JAB]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:20:15 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>England's Guilt
>by Joseph Goebbels

Right...Goebbels...Trust Me

Word for the Day: Lebensraum

Lebensraum (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was an
ideology proposing an aggressive expansion of Germany and the German
people. Developed under German Empire, it became part of German goals
during the First World War and was later adopted as an important
component of Nazi ideology in Germany.

The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum as
being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior
races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people
of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given
territories.[1]

The German Nazi Party claimed that Germany inevitably needed to
territorially expand because it was facing an overpopulation crisis
within its Treaty of Versailles-designed boundaries that Adolf Hitler
described: "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our
own resources".[1]

Thus expansion was justified as an inevitable necessity for Germany to
pursue in order to end the country's overpopulation within existing
confined territory, and provide resources necessary to its people's
well-being.[1]

Since the 1920s, the Nazi Party publicly claimed the necessity of
Germany to eventually expand into territories held by the Soviet
Union.[2] Hitler and Nazi party before taking power openly talked
about acquiring Polish territories as well[3] From 1939 to 1941, the
Nazi regime claimed to have discarded plans to annex Soviet
territories in light of improved relations with the Soviet Union via
the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and claimed that central Africa was where
Germany sought to achieve lebensraum.[4]

Hitler publicly claimed that Germany wanted to settle the lebensraum
issue peacefully through diplomatic negotiations that would require
other powers to make concessions to Germany.[5] At the same time
however Germany did prepare for war in the cause of lebensraum, and in
the late 1930s Hitler emphasized the need for a military build-up to
prepare for a potential clash between the peoples of Germany and the
Soviet Union.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

[Topaz]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:53:52 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:

>
>Right...Goebbels...Trust Me


Here are parts of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg in 1934. The ending of this speech is in the film Triumph of
the Will.

"It is difficult to define the concept of propaganda thoroughly and
precisely. This is especially true since in past decades it was
subject to unfavorable definitions, particularly as the enemy defined
it with regards to us Germans. First, then, we must defend it. Those
abroad sometimes claim that in the past we Germans were particularly
good in this area, but that unfortunately is not consistent with the
facts. We learned this all too clearly during the World War. While the
enemy states produced unprecedented atrocity propaganda aimed at
Germany throughout the whole world, we did nothing and were completely
defenseless against it. Only when enemy foreign propaganda had nearly
won over the greater part of the neutral states did the German
government begin to sense the enormous power of propaganda. It was too
late. Just as we were militarily and economically unprepared for the
war, so too with propaganda. We lost the war in this area more than in
any other.

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war
was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even
today large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical
characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing
the facts and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that
were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about
German soldiers chopping off children's hands and crucifying women to
realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of
calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense.

The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation,
particularly as the result of political practice in Germany.
Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern
state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the
subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not
only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand
that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes
everything that helps the people to realize this.

Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is
aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people
because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the
highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts
in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its
foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand,
rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a
question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach,
evidence and language.

Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to
an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without
internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a
superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it
wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the
appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such
is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals
it seeks."

"Each propaganda had a direction. The quality of this direction
determines whether propaganda has a positive or negative effect. Good
propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no
reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people
cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the
truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A
propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be
successful in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along
that serves a good cause. But propaganda is still necessary if a good
cause is to succeed. A good idea does not win simply because it is
good. It must be presented properly if it is to win. But a good idea
is itself the best propaganda. Such propaganda is successful without
being obnoxious. It depends on its nature, not its methods. It works
without being noticed. Its goals are inherent in its nature. Since it
is almost invisible, it is effective and powerful. A good cause will
lose to a bad one if it depends only on its rightness, while the other
side uses the methods of influencing the masses. We are for example
convinced that we fought the war for a good cause, but that was not
enough. The world should also have known that our cause was good.
However, we lacked the effective means of mass propaganda to make that
clear to the world. Marxism certainly did not fight for great ideals.
Despite that, in November 1918 it overcame Kaiser, Reich and the army
because it was superior in the art of mass propaganda.

National Socialism learned from these two examples. It drew the
correct practical conclusions from that knowledge. The ideal of a
socialist national community did not remain mere theory with us, but
became living reality in the thoughts and feelings of 67 million
Germans. Our propaganda of word and deed created the conditions for
that. Mastering them kept National Socialism from the danger of
remaining the dream and longing of a few thousand. Through propaganda,
it became hard, steely everyday reality."

"Marxism could not be eliminated by a government decision. Its
elimination was the end result of a process that began in the people.
But that was only possible because our propaganda had shown people
that Marxism was a danger to both the state and society. The positive
national discipline of the German press would never have been possible
without the compete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish
press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our
propaganda. Today particularism in Germany is something of the past.
The fact that it was eliminated by a strong central idea of the Reich
is no accident, rather depended on psychological foundations that were
established by our propaganda.

Or consider economic policy. Does anyone believe that the idea of
class struggle could have been eliminated only by a law? Is it not
rather the fact that the seeds we sowed in a hundred thousand meetings
resulted in a new socialist structure of labor? Today employers and
workers stand together in the Labor Front. The Law on National Labor
is the foundation of our economic thinking, realizing itself more and
more. Are not these social achievements the result of the long and
tireless labor of thousands of speakers?"

"We could eliminate the Jewish danger in our culture because the
people had recognized it as the result of our propaganda. Major
cultural achievements such as the unique "Kraft durch Freude" are
possible only with the powerful support of the people. The
prerequisite was and is propaganda, which here too creates and
maintains the connection to the people.

The Winter Relief last year raised about 350 million Marks. This was
not the result of taxation, rather many gifts of every amount.
Everyone gave freely and gladly, many of whom in the past had done
nothing in the face of similar need. Why? Because a broad propaganda
using every modern means presented the whole nation with the need of
this program of social assistance.

45 million Reich Marks of goods and services were provided. 85 million
Reich Marks worth of fuel were distributed. 130 million Reich Marks
worth of food were given out. Ten million Reich Marks worth of meals
were provided, and 70 million Reich Marks worth of clothing.

Some of these achievements were the result of donations in kind,
others the result of cash donations. Street collections, donations of
a part of paychecks, contributions from companies, and gifts
subtracted from bank accounts resulted in cash totaling 184 million
Reich Marks. 24 million marks alone were the result of "One Dish
Sundays." The Reich itself added 15 million marks to the
contributions of the people. The railway system provided reduced or
free shipping with a value of 14 million Marks.

Of our population of 65,595,000, 16,511,00 were assisted by the Winter
Relief. There were 150,000 volunteers. There were only 4,474 paid
workers, of whom 4,144 were in the 34 Gaue and 330 in the Reich
headquarters.

Propaganda and education prepared the way for the largest social
assistance program in history. They were the foundation. Their success
was that, over a long winter, no one in Germany went hungry or was
cold.

Over 40 million people approved of the Fuehrer's decision to leave the
League of Nations on 12 November 1933. That gave him the ability to
speak to the world in the name of the nation, defending honor, peace
and equality as the national ideals of the German people. The issues
of disarmament were put on firm and clear foundations. Once again,
propaganda was the foundation for the nation's unity on 12 November,
and therefore of the freedom of action that the Fuehrer had.

Each situation brings new challenges. And each task requires the
support of the people, which can only be gained by untiring propaganda
that brings the broad masses knowledge and clarity. No area of public
life can do without it. It is the never resting force behind public
opinion. It must maintain an unbroken relationship between leadership
and people. Every means of technology must be put in its service; the
goal is to form the mass will and to give it meaning, purpose and
goals that will enable us to learn from past failures and mistakes and
ensure that the lead National Socialist strength has given us over
other nations will never again be lost.

May the bright flame of our enthusiasm never fade. It alone gives
light and warmth to the creative art of modern political propaganda.
Its roots are in the people. The movement gives it direction and
drive. The state can only provide it with the new, wide-ranging
technical means. Only a living relationship between people, movement
and state can guarantee that the creative art of propaganda, which we
have made ourselves the world's master, will never sink into
bureaucracy and official narrow-mindedness.

Creative people made it and put it in the service of our movement. We
must have creative people who can use the means of the state in its
service.

It is also a function of the modern state. Its reach is the firm
ground on which it must stand. It rises from the depths of the people,
and must always return to the people to find its roots and strength.
It may be good to have power based on weapons. It is better and longer
lasting, however, to win and hold the heart of a nation."

Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html

.. .. Suvorov assembles impressive evidence to show that Stalin was
preparing to attack Germany in 1941. Suvorov writes that on June 13,
1941, Stalin secretly began "the biggest troop movement in the history
of civilization," transferring enormous military forces to the
Soviet-German frontier. The Soviet troops were deployed there not for
defense, but in preparation for a surprise invasion. "It seems
certain," writes Suvorov, "that the Soviet concentration on the
frontier was due to be completed by July 10. Thus, the German blow
which fell just 19 days earlier found the Red Army in the most
unfavorable situation -- in railway waggons."

The politically correct always answer that the Communists were not
planning to attack, or if they were it wasn't important. Why do they
think the Communists were not going to attack? Did a Jew tell them
that? The Jews control their media. And as for it not being important,
if subhuman Communists were planning to attack them, they would
suddenly think it was extremely important.

The Nazis and Hitler Saved Us
The really bad guys in World War 2 were the western allies, especially
the Americans. The monumental blindness and stupidity, unmatched
barbarism and sadism of America and Britain nearly brought a new Dark
Age upon a world dominated, not by them, but by the Soviet Union and
communism, Although the Nazis and fascists lost the war-their heroic
struggle with hardly any resources against overwhelming odds allowed
western civilization to survive. After 1945, it was the atomic bomb,
far above and beyond everything else, which allowed the west to
survive, even to this day-but before that, it was ADOLF HITLER who
saved us. For that he deserves our eternal gratitude and admiration.
It was HITLER who built and inspired the small coalition of the
willing to fight the good war against communism. By launching the
attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 with only conventional
weapons, HITLER and Germany, and Germany's allies pre-empted STALIN's
well-prepared and massive attack to the west, and postponed a complete
Soviet victory long enough for the US and Britain to finally come to
their senses. The US and Britain eventually took up essentially the
same struggle with nuclear weapons, or at least the threat of nuclear
weapons, even when that meant possible destruction of all life on the
planet.
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com

Here is a quote from Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
"Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that
the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and
thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation
of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a
period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces
bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a
military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being
carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was
being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed
incapable of defense.
What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident,
enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the
Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether
it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on
the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or
others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it
was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly
alien outside world.
Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and
defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up
the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they
may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals,
nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and
complementary whole.
And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other
parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural
fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to
acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England
that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman
branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the
[British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly
unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered
Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not
get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed
race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in
artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood
mixture.
I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became
obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the
German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also
greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When
the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than
just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they
defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples
stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the
West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended
more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa,
they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same
way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire
continent.
And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply
rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they
participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support
or with streams of volunteers.
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the
Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of
Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our
frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored,
motorized and infantry divisions.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow
the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart.
Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was
a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers
now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had
known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they
do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to
avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were
to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become
unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger
not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if
possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the
outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure
about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the
extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank
the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the
strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may
thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds
of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more
than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion
against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.
If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend
this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over
the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns,
If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a
European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the
concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other
nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have
come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch,
Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of
the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in
the truest sense of the word.

[JAB]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:51:20 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Here are parts of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
>Nuernberg in 1934. The ending of this speech is in the film Triumph of
>the Will.

Drifing off the topic

>>We
>>know from the diaries of Lord Halifax, the British foreign minister,
>>that Hitler offered terms that did not involve German control of
>>Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the
>>cabinet ...

>Word for the Day: Lebensraum

>The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum as
>being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior
>races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people
>of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given
>territories.[1]
>
>The German Nazi Party claimed that Germany inevitably needed to
>territorially expand because it was facing an overpopulation crisis
>within its Treaty of Versailles-designed boundaries that Adolf Hitler
>described: "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our
>own resources".[1]

My, my, since "we" are big and powerful, "we" have the right to
"conquer" new lands with "our" motor-mouth agreements, but England
refused to play "our" game.

Expression for the Day: Arrogant Bastards

[Topaz]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:23:32 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>Drifing off the topic

>
>
>My, my, since "we" are big and powerful, "we" have the right to
>"conquer" new lands with "our" motor-mouth agreements, but England
>refused to play "our" game.
>
>Expression for the Day: Arrogant Bastards

Manifest Destiny was a phrase which invoked the idea of divine
sanction for the territorial expansion of the United States. It first
appeared in print in 1845, in the July-August issue of the United
States Magazine and Democratic Review. The anonymous author, thought
to be its editor John L. O'Sullivan, proclaimed "our manifest destiny
to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free
development of our multiplying millions."
The specific context of the article was the annexation of Texas, which
had taken place not long before. Other applications of the notion of
manifest destiny were soon found. It was used to promote the
annexations of Mexican territory acquired in the War with Mexico, of
territory in Oregon gained through negotiations with the British, and
the seizure (not carried out) of Cuba from the Spanish during the
1850's.

[JAB]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:10:40 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>Expression for the Day: Arrogant Bastards
>

>Manifest Destiny...first

>appeared in print in 1845,

That was before League of Nations, which Germany was a member until
1933. The "rules of engagement" had changed with the advent of the
league.

United Kingdom was instrumental in bringing about the league, and as
noted at Wiki, "Member states were expected to "respect and preserve
as against external aggression" the territorial integrity of other
members and to disarm "to the lowest point consistent with domestic
safety." [1]

A Nazi coup for annexation of Austria in 1938 exhibited worldly
arrogance

Thus, Germany was fully aware of the League's sentiment while they
reverted to a barbaric means of expansion.

Hence, things changed, and Germany said "Fuck You."

1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

[Topaz]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:19:38 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>>Manifest Destiny...first
>>appeared in print in 1845,
>
>That was before League of Nations, which Germany was a member until
>1933. The "rules of engagement" had changed with the advent of the
>league.

The "rules of engagement" changed after the USA got it's large cut of
the planet earth. Now it's evil for anyone else to do the same.

>
>United Kingdom was instrumental in bringing about the league, and as
>noted at Wiki, "Member states were expected to "respect and preserve
>as against external aggression" the territorial integrity of other
>members and to disarm "to the lowest point consistent with domestic
>safety." [1]
>
>A Nazi coup for annexation of Austria in 1938 exhibited worldly
>arrogance

Austria was a vast sea of swastika flags.

Austria Joins the German Reich
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t75ldUNc2Xw&feature=related

This portrayal of the 1938 union ("Anschluss") of Austria with the
German Reich, includes contemporary film footage with recent
English-language voiceover commentary. Runtime: 4:14 mins. For decades
US media and American history texts have portrayed the union of
Austria with the Reich as an act of "aggression" or "rape." The truth
is exactly the opposite. Rarely in history has a historical event
taken place with broader and more joyful popular approval.


Color Photos Of Austria's 1938 Union With German Reich
Life magazine
http://thirdreichcolorpictures.blogspot.com/2010/01/austrian-anschluss.html

This series of Life magazine color photos provides a vivid glimpse
into the popular mood of Austrians when they joined the German Reich
in 1938. These photos reflect something of the fervor of popular
support for Hitler and union (Anschluss) with National Socialist
Germany. These images also help to discredit the often-repeated lie
that the Anschluss was "aggression" or "rape."

>Thus, Germany was fully aware of the League's sentiment while they
>reverted to a barbaric means of expansion.
>
>Hence, things changed, and Germany said "Fuck You."
>

[JAB]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 04:34:49 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>That was before League of Nations, which Germany was a member until
>>1933. The "rules of engagement" had changed with the advent of the
>>league.
>
>The "rules of engagement" changed after the USA got it's large cut of
>the planet earth. Now it's evil for anyone else to do the same.

Eugenics is no longer 'practiced,' so it is with other idealism;
things change!

Environmental pollution has undergone a change in practices...

Ideations change with time....Hence, "When in Rome, do as the Romans
do," so to speak.

>1938 union ("Anschluss")

"Under considerable pressure from both Austrian and German Nazis,
Austria's Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg tried to hold a referendum for a
vote on the issue. Although Schuschnigg expected Austria to vote in
favour of maintaining autonomy, a well-planned coup d'état by the
Austrian Nazi Party of Austria's state institutions in Vienna took
place on 11 March 1938, prior to the referendum, which they canceled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

[Topaz]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 07:24:48 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>Eugenics is no longer 'practiced,' so it is with other idealism;
>things change!

Eugenics is evolution in the good direction. Now that the good side
lost the war, the future is going like the movie "Idiocracy".

>
>Environmental pollution has undergone a change in practices...
>
>Ideations change with time....Hence, "When in Rome, do as the Romans
>do," so to speak.
>
>

>"Under considerable pressure from both Austrian and German Nazis,
>Austria's Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg tried to hold a referendum for a
>vote on the issue. Although Schuschnigg expected Austria to vote in
>favour of maintaining autonomy, a well-planned coup d'état by the
>Austrian Nazi Party of Austria's state institutions in Vienna took
>place on 11 March 1938, prior to the referendum, which they canceled."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

Israeli Propagandists Taking Over Wikipedia?
Redress Information & Analysis
http://www.redressonline.com/2014/06/israeli-propagandists-taking-over-wikipedia/
The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects, has signed an agreement
that will allow Israeli propagandists to promote apartheid Israel and
its racist, Zionist policies through the pages of Wikipedia, the
world's largest and most popular free encyclopedia. The agreement was
signed by Rabbi Shai Piron, the Israeli education minister ...
Israelis are already making extensive use of Wikipedia to promote
their views. "In the framework of cooperation that is already in place
between Wikimedia Israel and the Ministry of Education, several pilot
projects are being conducted."


The problem is that Jews control the media. Their movie "The Sound
of Music" is Jewish propaganda regarding Austria.

[JAB]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:13:41 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Eugenics is evolution in the good direction.

Considering biologists are just starting to explore the genome topic,
they are clueless as to what the best combination would be.

Btw, is this world you want? "Always Remember That You Are Absolutely
Unique. Just Like Everyone Else"

>The problem is that Jews control the media.

They say Vladimir Putin does in Russia...and in Islamic countries, the
church...and in US, it depends upon your geo-location, but mostly a
conservative press.

[Topaz]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:18:53 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>>Eugenics is evolution in the good direction.
>
>Considering biologists are just starting to explore the genome topic,
>they are clueless as to what the best combination would be.

They are not clueless to the fact that being politically incorrect
means being unemployed biologists. Clearly the most intelligent people
should have a lot of children. And the least intelligent, especially
if they are on welfare, should be sterilized.

>
>Btw, is this world you want?

Yes

> "Always Remember That You Are Absolutely
>Unique. Just Like Everyone Else"
>
>
>>The problem is that Jews control the media.
>
>They say Vladimir Putin does in Russia...and in Islamic countries, the
>church...and in US, it depends upon your geo-location, but mostly a
>conservative press.

They are wrong about the USA. The Jews control the media.

There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Here is a quote from Steven Spielberg, "film is the greatest weapon
in the world".

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

[JAB]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 04:26:16 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>>Eugenics

> They are not clueless to the fact that being politically incorrect
>means being unemployed biologists. Clearly the most intelligent people
>should have a lot of children. And the least intelligent, especially
>if they are on welfare, should be sterilized.

Sorry Charlie, that's politically incorrect via today's
Republicans...the 'right to life' folks, these days.

"State Republican Party Official Resigns After Suggesting Women On
Welfare Should Be Sterilized"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/arizona-gop-official-resigns-after-saying-poor-women-should-be-sterilized/

>>>Eugenics is evolution in the good direction.

>>Btw, is this the world you want? "Always Remember That You Are

>>Absolutely Unique. Just Like Everyone Else"

>Yes

Are you familiar with above quote? In the context given, I was making
humor of Eugenic 'thinkers,' who were totally unaware of genome topic,
and manipulation of DNA. Repetitive cloning of a single male and
female would be a bit too much..."Just Like Everyone Else"



>The Jews control the media.


One should not confuse ownership with 'controlling the media,' which
indirectly suggests sinster acts.

Btw, there are some wacko folks out there:

Fact Sheet: Jews Control America
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=821

[Topaz]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 06:07:11 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>Sorry Charlie, that's politically incorrect via today's
>Republicans...the 'right to life' folks, these days.

Abortion should be outlawed. But the government should make sure all
children get fed. Women should be paid for being mothers.

>
>"State Republican Party Official Resigns After Suggesting Women On
>Welfare Should Be Sterilized"
>

Because the wrong side won the war and the Jews control the media.

>Are you familiar with above quote? In the context given, I was making
>humor of Eugenic 'thinkers,' who were totally unaware of genome topic,
>and manipulation of DNA. Repetitive cloning of a single male and
>female would be a bit too much..."Just Like Everyone Else"

I'm not familiar with that Marxist propaganda.

>
>One should not confuse ownership with 'controlling the media,' which
>indirectly suggests sinster acts.

"Imagine if Iraqi-American supporters of Saddam Hussein had control of
the American media. Suppose they controlled the national television
networks and were a majority of the owners, producers, and writers of
television entertainment and news. TV is an irresistible power that
reaches into every American home - the primary source by which most
Americans learn about the world. Consider the dangers of that enormous
power dominated by a tightly knit, Iraqi, Muslim minority that
supported the Hussein regime.
If the non-television media were still free, they undoubtedly would
treat Iraqi media domination as a great danger to America. Every
non-Iraqi source of media would proclaim that such control threatens
our freedoms. Congress would likely draft legislation to break up the
Iraqi stranglehold on television. Patriots would remind Americans that
if we were not free to obtain unbiased news, documentaries, and
programming, democracy could not work. The power of TV controlled by
one point of view would erode the foundation of all our freedoms: the
freedom of speech. Pundits would be outraged that non-Americans,
people with allegiance to a foreign power, had control over the
American mind.
Taking the analogy further, imagine if the rest of the media were also
in Iraqi hands. Suppose that the three major news magazines, Time,
Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report were run by Iraqis, that the
three most influential American newspapers, The New York Times, The
Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post - as well as a majority
of the remaining major newspapers and magazines - were controlled by
Iraqis. Imagine that Muslim Iraqis dominated the Hollywood movie
industry as well as book publishing and even book distribution.
Picture the Iraqis as also holding immense wealth in business and
banking, as thoroughly entrenched in entertainment and Hollywood,
academia, the judiciary, and the government. On top of all this,
suppose that supporters of Saddam Hussein had the most powerful lobby
in Washington and were responsible for the bulk of the fundraising of
both the Democratic and Republican parties. Suppose a dedicated Iraqi
was head of the National Security Council at the White House. Would
such a situation be dangerous for America?
If Americans awoke one morning and found Arabic names scrawled all
over their TV and movie credits, on their magazine and newspaper
mastheads and in the pages of their books, millions would say, "We've
been taken over!" Viewers would suspect the motives of everything they
see on television and read in newspapers, magazines, and books. They
would be especially wary of information about issues related to
Iraqis, Saddam Hussein, Islam, and the Middle East conflict. In very
short order, many Americans would cry out in the fashion of Howard
Beale: "I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!""
David Duke

>
>Btw, there are some wacko folks out there:
>
>Fact Sheet: Jews Control America

The Jews Are Our Misfortune
By Dr. William Pierce

If you've been listening to many of my broadcasts you will know that
the issue I talk about most often is that of media control. In nearly
every broadcast I have pointed out that the people who control the
mass media of news and entertainment are able to manipulate the
opinions and attitudes of about 95 per cent of the population. I have
pointed out
that the media bosses do this manipulation deliberately and in
collusion with one another, taking advantage of the compelling need
most people have to conform their ideas and their behavior to a
perceived norm.

The media bosses use their control over the mass media of
entertainment -- and to a lesser extent over the news media -- to
create an artificial norm that is presented to the public through
television, motion pictures, advertising, and other media, and this
artificial norm is the one perceived as real by most of the public.
Through their control of public opinion the media bosses also control
the democratic political process and governmental policy in a way that
is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to the White public. And
these media bosses are overwhelmingly Jews.

That has been the message I have presented over and over again in many
of these broadcasts. I have talked about different facets of Jewish
media control and have presented different specifics, different
details, in various broadcasts. I've discussed a number of different
Hollywood films or television shows as specific examples of the way in
which the Jews use their media control to brainwash the public, to
promote
fashions and styles and behavior that are harmful to our people but
that advance the long-term schemes of the Jews to further dominate and
exploit our society.

(Some of this may be outdated today, but it still explains why things
are the way they are)

I've talked about specific Jews who control various segments of the
mass media, and I've pointed out specific instances of the destructive
way in which they use their control. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Sumner Redstone and his control of MTV and CBS and the
Hollywood film studio Paramount Pictures. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Michael Eisner and his control of the Disney Company and
ABC. I've talked about the Jewish media boss Gerald Levin and his
control of Time Warner and CNN. I've talked about the Jewish media
boss Edgar Bronfman and his control of the largest segment of the
popular music industry and Universal Studios in Hollywood. And I've
talked about dozens of other Jewish media bosses and the media they
control and the specific ways in
which they use those media. In particular, during the past few months
I've talked about several recent Hollywood films which deliberately
target teenaged White girls and brainwash them with the notion that it
is fashionable for them to have sex with Black males.

And of course, I've talked about the Jewish control of the news media
as well as the entertainment media. In a way similar to their use of
the entertainment media to set popular fashions, the Jewish media
bosses distort and censor the news in order to give the public a
distorted picture of what is happening in the world. I've given
several very
specific examples of this Jewish management of the news in recent
months.

I've talked about the total blackout at the national level of the news
of the atrocious rape and massacre of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by
Blacks last December, and I've talked about the almost total
suppression of the news of the Black racial attacks on Whites in
Seattle in the Mardi Gras riot at the end of February this year. I
also talked about
the downplaying of the racial aspects of the Black rioting in
Cincinnati in April of this year, about the failure of the news media
outside the immediate Cincinnati area to mention the deliberate
targeting of Whites, especially White women, by the Black rioters. And
I described the gross distortions in the news coverage of the racial
politics in York,
Pennsylvania, that led to the current White mayor of York being
charged in May with the killing of a Black during a Black race riot in
York 32 years ago.

I have pointed out repeatedly how all of this suppression of the news
and distortion of the news is aimed at creating and maintaining a
false picture in the public mind of racial conflict in the United
States. In this false picture Whites always are the aggressors, Blacks
or other non-Whites are the innocent victims, and the root of all
racial conflict
is White racism.

In a number of my broadcasts I've discussed at length why the Jews do
what they do: why they use their media control in such a deceptive and
destructive way, what their motives are. I've also talked about how
they collaborate. I've pointed out that their propaganda policies are
not formulated independently, but that they have a coherent party line
that
they all follow. I've given a number of specific examples of this.
Well, all of these things that I've talked about have not gone
unnoticed by the Jewish media bosses themselves. When people expose
their activities or their scheming they pay attention. In particular,
they have been paying attention to these American Dissident Voices
broadcasts and to the work of my organization, the National Alliance.
They read what's on our Web sites at natvan.com and natall.com and
resistance.com, and they talk about it among themselves. This shows up
pretty clearly in the uniform way in which their media respond to us.
Whether it's the Associated Press or Time magazine or the Washington
Post or a television news commentator anywhere in the United States,
they always use the same
phrasing in talking about us. They always use the word "hate" in
referring to us. They always say that the National Alliance is the
"most dangerous organized hate group" in America, despite the fact
that all we do is disseminate to the public the truth about what
they're doing. That's what they regard as "dangerous" and as "hate."

If you want to see a current indicator of the fact that they do think
about us, go to the Web site promoting Steven Spielberg's new
movie,A.I. There you'll see a parody of a part of the National
Alliance's Web site in the form of a page headed "Who Is the
Anti-Robot Militia?" It's obviously copied, almost word for word, from
the page "Who Is the National Alliance?" on our Web site. It's
difficult for me to understand what they hoped to accomplish with this
parody. Perhaps they believe that it will make people take us less
seriously.

Somewhat less quirky but much more directly deceptive are their
standard smokescreen responses. It used to be that whenever I would
raise the issue of Jewish monopoly control of the mass media of news
and entertainment during an interview or on a call-in program, I would
hear the response from a Jew or an apologist for the Jews: "What about
Ted
Turner? He's not a Jew," as if that negated everything I had said. Of
course, that response was used before Ted Turner's CNN was taken over
by the very Jewish Time Warner. And now that Ted Turner has been eased
out of all decision-making positions in the cable news network he
built and has been replaced by Jews, one doesn't hear the Ted Turner
response any longer.

The standard responses today, the ones I hear as often as I used to
hear the Ted Turner response, are the "it's the shareholders" and the
"it's the big bankers." Whenever I start naming names -- whenever I
begin talking about the control over the media wielded by Michael
Eisner or Sumner Redstone, for example, a Jew will pop up with the
response:
"Those guys don't control the media. It's the shareholders who control
the media. Eisner and Redstone are just employees. The shareholders
tell them what to do." A variation on this theme is, "Eisner and
Redstone don't own the media. It's the big banks that own all of the
media, and most of the big bankers are Gentiles."

Well, of course, that's not really true, and they know it's not true.
The big Jewish media bosses are mostly quite autonomous. Sumner
Redstone, for example, owns outright two-thirds of the shares in his
media empire. His personal fortune is more than 12 billion dollars,
according to Forbes magazine this month. I'm quite sure he doesn't
check
with any shareholders before he dreams up some new piece of
race-mixing filth for MTV.

As for Gentile bankers telling the Jewish media bosses what kind of
propaganda they must produce for the public, that's total nonsense. I
haven't yet done a study of the investment banking industry to
determine what percentage of Jews and what percentage of Gentiles are
involved in it, but one thing that's certain is that the Gentile
bankers would faint dead away at the thought of telling Jewish media
bosses such as Michael Eisner or the Sulzberger family or the
Newhouses or Sumner Redstone to cut back on the race-mixing
propaganda. Gentile bankers as a class are rich, deracinated capons,
whose only interest is money.

Every Jewish propaganda medium -- CBS or MTV or Time magazine or the
New York Times -- is staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and they
all know what they're doing. They work as a tribe, as a swarm of
termites gnawing at the foundations of our existence. There is total
agreement among the media Jews as to the general thrust of their
propaganda. They may disagree on many of the details -- they may even
compete against each other for a bigger slice of the media pie -- but
all agree on the general goals of degrading and subverting Gentile
civilization, of corrupting Gentile institutions, of mongrelizing our
race. Again, the Jews work as a tribe, and that is the source of their
strength and their success.

Gentile bankers, on the other hand, work only for themselves. They
would not dream of combining and using their financial strength to
protect our people from the Jews. They are terrified of the Jews, of
the media. The more money they have, the more selfish and the more
cowardly they are. The huge difference, the decisive difference,
between the Jews and our people is that they work as a tribe, and we
work as individuals. They
work together, rich Jews and poor Jews, for their common tribal
interests, against us, and until now we have failed to organize
effectively to defend ourselves against them.

Anyway, my point is that their defense against my exposure of their
activities and their power over our government is orchestrated - that
is, they've all gotten together and decided what their defense will be
-- and it's a deliberate lie. As I continue to expose the destructive
activities of the Jewish media bosses, you will continue to hear them
and their apologists respond that they really don't have any power,
that it's the Gentile shareholders and the Gentile bankers who control
the media. A lot of dimwits will believe that lie. A lot of couch
potatoes, a lot of soccer moms, a lot of baseball fans, a lot of
lemmings, will
believe that it's not the Jew Sumner Redstone who deliberately uses
MTV to corrupt White teenagers; instead it's some cabal of Gentile
shareholders and Gentile bankers who tell him what to do, and Redstone
is only an employee who follows their orders.

I think it's time for us to orchestrate our exposure of the Jewish
media. I think it's about time for the public, lemmings and all, to
begin hearing a uniform charge against them, a uniform statement of
our opposition to them. How about this: The Jews are our misfortune.
That's simple, and it's true, and it's easy to remember. Repeat after
me: The
Jews are our misfortune. Let's use that statement. Let's let everyone
hear it. Let's impress it on everyone's consciousness: The Jews are
our misfortune.

Of course, when I say the Jews are our misfortune, I'm not talking
only about the Jewish media bosses. I'm not talking only about the
Jews at the top, such as Sumner Redstone and the Sulzbergers and
Michael Eisner and the others who formulate and direct the propaganda
line against Gentile society; I'm talking about the whole tribe, and I
believe that message comes across in the statement, the Jews are our
misfortune. Let me tell you what the standard lemming response will be
to that statement, the response that they have been taught and will
parrot back.

First, from the religious lemmings it will be something like this:
"Oh, no, the Jews aren't our misfortune, we owe everything to the
Jews. Don't you know that Jesus was a Jew and God was his father? That
makes God a Jew. We must do what the Jews tell us. They are God's
people." I'm sure that argument is embarrassing to some of the more
sophisticated
apologists for the Jews, but many Christian Fundamentalists use it,
and I've heard it often.

From the secular lemmings it will be more like: "Don't you know that
Freud and Einstein and Salk were Jews? We wouldn't have a space
program if it weren't for Einstein. We wouldn't have a cure for polio
if it weren't for Salk. The Jews are our fortune, not our misfortune."
Well, of course, our space program has practically nothing to do with
Einstein or his Jewishness. Gentile thinkers envisioned it and
pioneered both its theoretical basis and its practical development.
The German theoretician, Hermann Oberth, and the Russian, Konstantin
Tsiolkovsky, were two of the Gentiles who independently demonstrated
mathematically the feasibility of space travel in the early years of
the last century. The American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard and the
German Wernher von Braun designed actual rockets and built the
vehicles which were the precursors of today's space ships. Jews didn't
become involved until it became glamorous and profitable. And the
development of a polio vaccine hardly would have missed a beat if
Jonas Salk had gone into the garment business instead of medicine. He
was one of a team, and he got the credit for the work of others as
well as for his own work.

The reasons we hear these silly and groundless claims in the first
place about how much we owe the Jews -- the reasons are Jewish media
control and Jewish tribalism, Jewish support for their own. Freud was
given the enormous buildup he received for his theorizing about anal
personalities and penis envy and the like because he was a Jew, not
because of any genuine merit in his theorizing. Other Jewish writers
recognized him as one of their own and propelled him to a position of
undeserved authority, and his theories ultimately did an enormous
amount of damage to the development of our understanding of psychology
and mental disease. Einstein was a competent mathematical physicist,
but a great deal of the publicity he received was based on the fact
that he was a Jew rather than on the merits of his work. As in the
case of Salk, Jewish publicists gave Einstein credit for the work of
others as well as for his own work.

What we must do is look at the balance sheet. Is the damage done to
our race by Karl Marx and all of his Jewish followers in the communist
movement -- the selective murder of more than 30 million of the best
of our people in Europe during the past century -- offset by whatever
contributions Einstein and Salk and other Jews have made -- even if
they did everything their Jewish boosters claim for them? Certainly,
there have been many other Jews who were competent and creative
engineers and scientists besides Einstein and Salk. Not every clever
Jew became a lawyer or a scriptwriter or a pawn shop owner or a
middleman. Some became chemists or mathematicians or physicists. But
can all of them together make up for the mass murders Lazar Kaganovich
perpetrated
aginst the Ukrainians, for the rapes and murders of German civilians
instigated by Ilya Ehrenburg, for the Eastern European girls still
being forced into sexual slavery on a huge scale today by Israeli
slave dealers?

I think not. And I have not yet put on the balance sheet what the
Jewish masters of America's mass media have done and are doing to us.
What can possibly compensate White Americans for the deliberate,
malevolent corruption of our young people by just one Jewish gangster
like Sumner Redstone and his MTV? The race-mixing, culture-destroying,
hip-hop filth churned out by Sumner Redstone's MTV seven days a week
is the single most destructive influence in American life today. And
of course, Redstone doesn't produce this filth all by himself. He has
thousands of Jews working for him at every level, not only in MTV but
also in CBS and in Paramount Pictures and in all of his other media
properties.

And although MTV, targeting White teenagers as it does, may seem the
most blatantly and maliciously destructive of the Jewish media, it is
hardly much worse than some of the filth being poured into the minds
of the American public by Michael Eisner's Disney empire: especially
by its Miramax films division under the Weinstein brothers. The fact
that much of the entertainment produced by Eisner's Disney Company is
relatively nnocuous does not compensate for the fact that some of it
is pure poison. The poison is being introduced gradually, more and
more each year, and it is having its effect. When the Disney Company
was entirely a Gentile company a few years ago, its output of
ntertainment may sometimes have been excessively bland, but none of it
was poison designed to corrupt White Americans.

And what can possibly compensate on our balance sheet for what the
Jewish news media are doing in their deliberate, calculated distortion
of the picture of the world seen by the American public. It is a
picture which has been designed to confuse White Americans, to
undermine their self-confidence, to induce feelings of racial guilt in
them. Just one example: the systematic suppression of the news of
Black crimes against White people and the exaggeration of the news of
every White crime against non-Whites is not a fluke. It is done
routinely by all of the Jewish news media: by the New York Times, by
the Washington Post, by Time magazine and Newsweek magazine, by CNN
and ABC News and CBS News and NBC News and all the rest. And
interracial crime is just one issue. The relations between the sexes;
immigration; the foreign relations of the United States with the rest
of the world, especially in the Middle East; and a hundred other
important issues are similarly distorted in their portrayal by the
media. This deliberate distortion of the public's view of the world
has done irreparable damage to the American system of government and
to American society. And again: the distortion has been deliberate,
planned, systematic, and intended to do harm to us. No number of funny
Jewish comedians, or successful Jewish entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley
or on Wall Street, or clever Jewish medical researchers can compensate
for this harm.

When we look at the balance sheet the conclusion is clear beyond any
doubt: the Jews are our misfortune. It's way past time for us to
accept this conclusion, to overcome our fears of being labeled
"anti-Semitic" for accepting this conclusion, to brush aside these
fears which have been instilled in us by the propaganda of the mass
media, and then to begin working to improve our fortunes.

[JAB]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 04:35:26 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Abortion should be outlawed. But the government should make sure all
>children get fed.

John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics
and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the
President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all
naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal
menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking
about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that
conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in
their menstrual flows.

So, when does an abortion happen?


http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by

>>Are you familiar with above quote?

> I'm not familiar with that Marxist propaganda.

Always Remember That You Are Absolutely Unique. Just Like Everyone
Else

Quote Investigator http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/10/you-unique/

>>One should not confuse ownership with 'controlling the media,' which
>>indirectly suggests sinster acts.

>"Imagine if Iraqi-American supporters of Saddam Hussein had control of
>the American media.

New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Chicago Seven
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven

Joseph C. Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

Sure a lot of "bad news" being reported, for a long time

>The Jews Are Our Misfortune

Actually, the American Indians would say that about those hostile
"white men."

Dr. William Pierce, yep, he was white

Btw, nationalists exist in just about all countries...maybe we could
put them all in a fighting ring, and let them box each other...

Jerks who can not sort the chaff from the wheat....

Ah yes, here is a nationalist:

Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has complained that he
is facing 'torture' in prison, because, among other things, he is not
allowed access to a more up-to-date Playstation computer console.

http://www.thelocal.no/20140214/breivik-sends-hand-written-letter-to-afp-wire-agency

[Topaz]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:28:23 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics
>and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the
>President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all
>naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal
>menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking
>about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that
>conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in
>their menstrual flows.
>
>So, when does an abortion happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by the removal or forcing out from
the womb of a fetus or embryo before it is able to survive on its
own.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is
often called a miscarriage. It can also be purposely caused in which
case it is known as an induced abortion. The term abortion most
commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

>Always Remember That You Are Absolutely Unique. Just Like Everyone
>Else
>
>Quote Investigator http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/10/you-unique/
>
>

>

>New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713)
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
>
>Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
>
>Chicago Seven
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven
>
>Joseph C. Wilson
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson
>
>Sure a lot of "bad news" being reported, for a long time
>
>

>Actually, the American Indians would say that about those hostile
>"white men."

By David Duke

Go back far enough my friend. Do you really believe that historical
Asian and Amerindian tribal and ethnic groups didn't destroy other
peoples and even different Indian ethnic or tribal groups?
I have a PhD in history and have read extensively on the Indian tribal
histories in the Americas. For instance, every American historian is
aware that Indian tribes fought each other with merciless cruelty
without European interference. The Hurons for instance were almost
totally exterminated by the Iroquois, a closely related tribe. The
Comanche, supreme warriors, terrorized all their neighboring tribes
and had a fierce reputation among Indians for slowly torturing
prisoners of war to death.

The Aztecs, who were far more technologically capable than the other
Indian tribal groups around them, as were the Incas in Peru, were as
imperialist in their world as Europeans were in theirs.

Perhaps your heritage is Arab. You must be aware that Arab slave
traders depopulated whole regions of Black Africa. Would you use this
fact of history to justify the oppression of the Palestinians?

Maybe you are Indian or Pakistani or Malaysian or Persian. No matter
what your heritage is. Maybe you are of African descent, perhaps a
Hutu or Tutsi or Zulu. Look at the record of slavery, conquest,
tribalism, even genocide with open eyes, the same eyes with which you
try to condemn all Europeans!

Don't you realize there is hardly any populated part of India, or
Africa or South America, Asia or Europe, where historically, even
through prehistory, that one group didn't go into another area and
take control through the conquest of war and differential birthrates,
and frankly yes, even genocide.

My friend, cannot you see honestly that all human tribes, ethnic
groups, and races have dirty hands.

If European people have historically done evil things so that today
they deserve annihilation, then you should go ahead and say that all
humanity deserves it, including your own people.

And the fact that almost every human race or tribe has done this kind
of thing in the past, does not make those things right or moral in
today's world.

Hopefully, we have developed a new morality of the relations of one
people with another.

Almost every atrocity, human rights violation and bloody war is based
on real or perceived past wrongs of other peoples and nations. And now
apparently you want to continue that horrific vicious cycle, by
telling me that because of past wrongs real or perceived that
Europeans of whatever nationality have no right to be concerned about
preserving their heritage, their freedom and their human rights.
There is no inherent evil in the European people.

You have been programmed by the Zio extremists to hate their historic
enemy, to hate their enemy so they could use their divide and conquer
strategy.

They work overtime with their control of Hollywood and academia to
demonize European Americans so as to deflect you from the real
controllers of America and the Western World.

If European Americans really controlled the media would they promote
the countless films that constantly evoke emotional feelings of hate
and disgust toward themselves? Would they promote immigration intended
to make them a tiny minority in the government and culture that they
themselves built?

European people historically have had times of imperialism and
expansionism as have all peoples.

But we, and hopefully all enlightened people have learned a new
morality, and become dedicated to the idea that oppression against
other peoples should not continue.

Europeans engaged in slavery, as did all other peoples on Earth, but
every European nation on Earth ended slavery on its own. And then,
Europeans have worked hard around the world to save the lives and
freedom of slaves. A good example is Britain that not only ended the
slave trade of its sovereigns but used the British navy to free slaves
wherever it found such trafficking on Earth and on the high seas.

Remember too that percentage wise, a tiny percent of Europeans owned
slaves. Even in the Southern part of the United States in the
Antebellum South it was less than 5 percent. In Canada, slavery of
other races was almost nonexistent, the same is true in the heart of
Europe.

Did the Arabic people not engage in slavery, or the Asian peoples, the
African peoples, the Indian peoples?

If you think otherwise, then you are extremely naive and biased.
The most horrible aspects of slavery were found in the inhuman aspects
of the slave trade. Watch my video and read my books and you will
learn about the tiny minority of the world's population who were the
world's champions of slavery.

But, has the media given you images of the Jewish slave trader?
No, they have given you countless images of the Christian slaver and
slave trader such as the latest movie Django by the Weinstein Bros.
Studio.

They have instilled in you an obvious emotional hatred about Christian
Europeans, but only the kindest representations of the real tribal
masters of the slave tribe.

Could that be because it is the same hyper-racist tribe that controls
the media?

If you want to hate European people, deny their human rights and wish
for their destruction, then you support the same kinds of crimes for
which you condemn them.

Funny, this European whom you seem to despise, doesn't want to destroy
you or your pepole, while you wish harm upon him and his people. Who
is it that needs a lesson in hypocrisy?

Another fact you might have overlooked in regard to the Indian
question is that modern anthropology has extensive forensic, physical
and DNA evidence that actually Europeans settled in America thousands
of years before the East Asian "Indians" came.

I have read extensively in the latest historical and anthropological
currents in academia, and I realize that it is likely that you know
little about these discoveries and scientific research.

The Zio media has no interest in publicizing into the common
consciousness the latest historic, archeological and genetic evidence
of the presence of European settlers in North America long before the
presence of East Asian "Indian" migrations.

Certainly the theory is controversial in academia, and the
Zio-dominated anthropology since the time of Boas has a vested
interest in denying any evidence that celebrates the heritage of any
people other than their own fellow tribalists.

But the evidence cannot be summarily dismissed, and many prestigious
anthropologists accept the hypothesis. Among them is Dennis J.
Stanford, an archaeologist and Director of the
Paleoindian/Paleoecology Program at the National Museum of Natural
History at the Smithsonian Institution. Another respected academic is
Prof. Bruce Bradley of Exeter university in Britain, who has offered
copious evidence of European presence in North America.

Other scientists have studied Indian tribes deep within the North
American continent and they found distinctly European genes, and by
scientific genetic dating methods, found the presence of European
genes in Amerindian people that dated earlier than Columbus or any
Norse incursions.

If this ultimately becomes scientifically proven, it would show that
these ancient Europeans were basically wiped out by the Asian
migrations, leaving only traces of European genes in some of the
current "native" populations.

The difference is that the Asian invaders didn't create any
reservations, no vast tracts of land for the people whom they
conquered and decimated, the Indian/Asian invaders simply exterminated
and subsumed them all.

This fact of the probable genocide against Europeans in the Americas,
or the horrific invasions into Europe and Western Asia by Mongol
Asians, does not make me hate them or want to suppress them or harm
them in any way!

Arab and Muslim states invaded and ruled over European lands, but I am
not so blind as to not recognize the harsh realities of the Crusades
or European colonialism.

In fact, I personally have much respect, even honor for the Indian
peoples of America. I love how they lived in harmony and respect for
Nature. And they had every right to courageously defend themselves
from the invaders hundreds of years ago, just as Europeans had and
have those same rights to defend their homelands.

Whether or not you believe this is not really important though. In
fact it is ultimately immaterial to the discussion of human rights.
For even if you don't accept this historical concept, it doesn't
change the fact that the ancestors of every people on earth have
committed what by today's standards are called human rights
violations. Even the East Asian people who migrated into the
Americas, themselves undoubtedly have histories of tribal human
aggression against other ethnic expression of mankind stretching back
into Asia in the remote mists of time.

The point is that using collective crimes of any people in the remote
past to justify harming present populations is itself immoral.
For, as I have said, past wrongs, or perceived past wrongs of enemies,
have always been the justification used to commit horrific human
rights crimes.

You might be so attached to your hatred of Europeans which has been
instilled in you by the Zio media, that you can't look at the evidence
objectively. Fueled in great part by the media, anti-European hate is
now practically a religion.

It is similar to the Zio media induced lie that Big Oil controls
American politics when not one of the 40 largest political donors to
Obama and Romney were from oil companies. Or the Zio myth that the
Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were for oil, when not one more drop of oil
was gained from those wars, but the wars cost trillions of dollars
from the American people. The war was not for oil. It was for Israel
and Jewish supremacism.

Or the Zio media inculcated perception that organized crime is
overwhelmingly an Italian thing when the fact is that even in the 2oth
century organized crime has been far more of a "Jewish thing" than an
"Italian institution."

You may have unknowingly developed a visceral hatred of Europeans
because of the portrayal of the African Slave trade to the Americas.
But Jewish Supremacist Steven Spielberg's Amistad effectively covered
up the Jewish domination of this abominable enterprise. Watch my
documentary The Shocking Jewish Role in Slavery.

The Zio media doesn't make you conscious about any of this. The
Weinstein Bros and ZioWood do not want you to be aware of the
prominent Jewish role in the slave trade, because they want you to
hate European folks rather than oppose the people who truly exploit
and rule over you today in the Zio Matrix of Media, politics and
finance!

And, of course, they want European Americans to hate themselves so
they will not defend themselves from the real tribal supremacists who
have conquered them.

You need to ask yourself about the mindset in which you now seem to
endorse harm and genocide upon people of European descent.
That's the difference between you and me.

I wish no harm against any other people on this Earth, and I believe
that genocide is the ultimate evil, no matter who it's victims are.
You sir, may be the hypocrite, but I know you don't realize it.

You are not intending to be hypocritical, you have been programmed
this way by the Zio media.

You have been conditioned by the ultimate supremacists on earth, the
Jewish Supremacists, to hate the European people, as many of my own
people have been conditioned to hate themselves.

It is the same force that really runs America and the "American"
media. And they have a stake in you hating European Americans.
It is so they can rule over America and Europe, and ultimately seek
their rule every other race and nation through their control of the
Western nations.

The truth is that the dispossession of European Americans is actually
the ultimate source of the horrific policies of the Zio Globalists who
harm not just the Palestinians, but the entire world.

They want to make African Americans hate European Americans rather
than understand the harm done to them by the Zio supremacists who run
the media that destroys their families, promotes drug and alcohol
abuse and addiction, sexual degeneracies, violence, and other
destruction of the African American community.

They want to make my own people hate themselves so these ultimate
supremacists and haters can rule over us.
I wish the best for you.

I will repeat this until I am blue in the face, until I lose this
aging voice:

I believe that every people has the right to be free and independent,
to preserve and celebrate and enhance their own values, culture and
unique expressions of humanity.

I am the opposite of what is defined as a "racist."

That is because I not only oppose with all my heart and soul the
oppression of any race or any people, I believe that every unique
expression of humanity has the right to be free and should be
preserved, even enhanced in its unique expressions of culture and art
and philosophy.

I believe no people has the right to enslave or exploit or harm any
other people.

I believe in human rights for all people, and by that I mean every
people on earth, including the European people.

I believe that there is never, ever an excuse to deny people their
basic human rights. Nothing ever justifies harming the innocent.
I believe that different peoples can and should be able to work out
their disagreements without war and hate and harm.
But I also know that we are ruled by a tiny tribal extremist minority
that maintains their power and control over us by a divide and conquer
strategy.

Even those misguided miscreants should be treated with human rights in
mind. But those who commit crimes should answer for them within the
bounds of law and justice. I also believe that they must be deposed
from their malevolent influence over us and over the Earth.
They must be dethroned from their power over the media, International
Finance and Politics.

I hope I have afforded you another perspective on a very emotional
issue for so many people.

Please Wake up!
All peoples have the right to human rights, even those you might
despise!

Best Wishes to You,
Dr. David Duke

>Dr. William Pierce, yep, he was white
>
>Btw, nationalists exist in just about all countries...maybe we could
>put them all in a fighting ring, and let them box each other...
>
>Jerks who can not sort the chaff from the wheat....
>
>Ah yes, here is a nationalist:
>
>Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has complained that he
>is facing 'torture' in prison, because, among other things, he is not
>allowed access to a more up-to-date Playstation computer console.
>

"Let me tell you something. White Americans are among the most
law-abiding people on Earth. White nationalists and the National
Alliance in particular are upholders of the law and traditions as set
down by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, who were
racial separatists as are we. It is the Michael Chertoffs and his
friends at the ADL who are the law violators. It is George Bush and
his Jewish handlers who make a mockery of the Constitution and the
rights of Americans. They break the laws. We do not. And we put you
lawbreakers on notice: we are not afraid. We are right. Our actions
are moral and our actions are lawful. We act in the best traditions of
America and of Western Civilization. And we will not back down. And it
is not White separatists who are the violent threat to the non-White
races. It is the Jewish establishment which ordered the burning alive
of 100,000 non-Whites who were peacefully retreating from Kuwait after
their surrender in 1991. It is the Jewish power structure, not White
separatists, which routinely pumps Palestinian children full of
bullets, tortures them and keeps them behind barbed wire in what ought
to be called concentration camps. It isn't White people who commit the
drive-by shootings and drug murders on our streets, but the Jewish
establishment which has supported the browning of America has a lot to
answer for in that regard. And it isn't White people that have opened
the floodgates of immigration in every country in Europe, either. It's
the Jewish establishment that insists that no White nation on Earth
can keep itself White. That's genocide. Palestinians and Whites are in
the same boat; it's just that many Whites don't know it yet.

We're not afraid of you, Michael Chertoff. But we are concerned that
if we do nothing, you and your kind will exterminate our children - so
we're going to do something. We're going to do what the previous
generation of White people failed to do. We're going to have racial
solidarity. We're going to build a new sense of community among our
kind, even stronger than what our Founding Fathers had, and we now
know that our kind does not include you. And we're going to do it
honorably and legally and non-violently, so that everyone will be able
to see that any charges you lay against us will be false. The Jewish
establishment tried the false-charges game in 1988 in the Fort Smith
Sedition Trial, and a jury saw through your lies and found every White
separatist innocent. I predict that's going to happen again.

I predict that more and more White people are going to speak out. I
predict that the courage of the pro-White pioneers who speak out now
will embolden others to be equally brave in the near future. Let me
give you an example of one man who isn't afraid.

Chester Doles is a regional coordinator for the National Alliance. He
is 42, a father of eleven, a political science student at university
and a professional carpenter. Mr. Doles has built a beautiful
mountaintop meeting hall for the Georgia National Alliance near his
home. I've spoken there myself. Mr. Doles is not afraid -- even though
he was the subject of pseudo-legal intimidation just a few months ago.

A whistle-blower in a local sheriff's department revealed that Mr.
Doles and other members were being targeted for harassment by that
department, and the usual buzz-words of "neo-Nazi," "hater," and
references to Mr. Dole's Alliance meeting hall as a "compound" were
evident in the documents publicized by the patriotic whistle-blower.
It was clear that the stage was being set for turning that department
against Mr. Doles and his legal and honorable local Alliance unit,
though no false charges had yet been filed. It is not known if any
payoffs were actually made to corrupt officials in this case. What was
Mr. Doles' response? After consulting with National Alliance
leadership, he issued a bold answer in the form of a press release,
from which I quote:

Offering absolutely no evidence to support its claims, the Sheriff's
Department recently issued an internal memo falsely accusing a local
citizen of several offenses.

The Sheriff's Department memo called the National Alliance "a racially
motivated hate group" and stated that it "has a compound in the north
Lumpkin County area." The Regional Coordinator for the National
Alliance, Mr. Chester J. Doles, Jr., responded to these accusations by
saying:

"We are a group of law-abiding citizens who support the efforts of the
police in controlling gangs and crime and wish them all success in
their efforts. In fact, we wish the laws were enforced more
vigorously."

He also said that the "compound" referred to was actually his own home
and that:

"our meeting hall and my house are not compounds any more than are the
American Legion or the YMCA."

He continued:

"The National Alliance is not a secret group or a gang. Its members
are upright concerned citizens, who use their real names and who have
excellent reputations. Members are out in the open in everything they
do, and remain completely legal at all times. The Lumpkin County Unit
of the National Alliance is comprised of local people who are
concerned with local issues that affect this area of Georgia - not
outsiders trying to cause trouble in the community. No one in the
National Alliance is assigned to the job of causing - or wants to
cause - confrontations with the police. The inference that this is
true is a clear attempt to blacken the Alliance in the eyes of law
enforcement officers, and create an atmosphere of distrust in which
misunderstandings and 'incidents' may occur."

The result was a retraction of the false charges and a friendly
meeting with the sheriff whose department was being manipulated by
outside forces into a confrontation with the Alliance. And as I speak
to you today Mr. Doles is continuing his activism full force.

What is terrorism? Webster's dictionary defines terrorism as "the act
of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by
terror or intimidation." Terror is extreme fear or fright. The
prosecutors in the Christine Greenwood case have already admitted to
the press that she and her friends are being prosecuted to send a
"chilling effect" through the White community. [Los Angeles Times,
November 20th, 2002] That, by definition is terrorism, aided and
abetted by the "Joint Terrorism Task Force." Pro-White groups operate
by discussion, by persuasion, by printing magazines, by writing books,
by producing videotapes and CDs and radio programs, by holding
community events like speeches and discussion groups and dances. It is
not we who engage in "a
mode of government by terror or intimidation." It is not we who
attempt to induce extreme fear or fright in anyone. It is not we who
lay false charges against the innocent.

We stand guarded by our innocence. We stand firm for the truth. We
will liberate our people from Jewish lies and domination. And we will
win in the end."

[JAB]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:53:09 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 21:28:23 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics
>>and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the
>>President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all
>>naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal
>>menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking
>>about.
>>

>>So, when does an abortion happen?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

>Abortion should be outlawed.

Well then, I guess lots of women will be locked up in jails, then?

[Topaz]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:35:13 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>>Abortion should be outlawed.
>
>Well then, I guess lots of women will be locked up in jails, then?

Not if they are paid to be mothers.

[Richard Falken]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:35:13 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:
>>>Abortion should be outlawed.
>>
>>Well then, I guess lots of women will be locked up in jails, then?
>
> Not if they are paid to be mothers.

I think he is saying women would be jailed because "natural" abortions.

Having a son is a personal decission that the couple makes. There is no
reason to back it with tax money. If you are so concerned, create a
non-profit and do it yourself.

Be warned engaging in such payments usually results in people with not
much money breeding like rabbits because it is a profitable activity
(particularly true in the case of immigrants or marginalized ethnic
groups). You are then likely to have children grow in suboptimal
conditions even if you back their education and home environment with
more money.

- --
Richard Falken: Epic Literature.
http://richard-falken.com
GPG key: http://richard-falken.com/files/648179F2.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlR+OBcACgkQ/FkZo7NRwi1lfgD/dwnNgwCHOaFbE8SWVQQkeRkn
V0OCryVex7PzPSNXluMA/140hLkbjy84iqmJKGrNqN9Gi9Rc0B6F4Mai+z/0kegg
=bRhO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JAB]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:21:23 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>Abortion should be outlawed.
>

> Not if they are paid to be mothers.

Stated differently, when is getting an abortion "wrong?"

Mifepristone (RU-486), for instance, is it OK to use if a woman
elects?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mifepristone

[Topaz]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 22:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Richard Falken
<richar...@richard-falken.com> wrote:


>
>I think he is saying women would be jailed because "natural" abortions.
>
>Having a son is a personal decission that the couple makes. There is no
>reason to back it with tax money. If you are so concerned, create a
>non-profit and do it yourself.

No, for one thing White women should not be allowed to kill their
White babies before they are born. And being a mother should be a real
job with a real paycheck from the government.

>
>Be warned engaging in such payments usually results in people with not
>much money breeding like rabbits because it is a profitable activity

Children are the future. White children are the best thing we can
have.

>(particularly true in the case of immigrants or marginalized ethnic
>groups).

We should have a nation for White people and only White women should
be paid to be mothers.

> You are then likely to have children grow in suboptimal
>conditions even if you back their education and home environment with
>more money.

There are laws about child neglect. And the best thing to spend money
on is White children. This is one example of what we should not be
spending money on:

By Jim Taylor

I believe I can, in one fell swoop prove that we have the
dumbest country on earth. All I need to do is mention that since 1948,
Americans have given Israel over 15 million dollars a day from your
salaries, paychecks and various earnings. No other nation on this
earth is dumb enough to do that not even the African ones. And to make
it worse you people do it gladly and with joy in your hearts. No one
complains, except me. Everyone else seems to think it is all right for
every American citizen to be robbed in this manner every day of their
lives with no end in sight. Can any nation be dumber that this? Most
Americans are so enslaved via Zionist propaganda and government
pronouncements that they think we owe this money so the Israelis can
live a much better life than in the good old USA. They have luxuries
you cannot afford. They take vacations all over the world which
Americans on average cannot afford. And when they do this they always
America and criticize you people who are the very ones who provide
them with these opportunities. I say you cannot get dumber than that.
The Israelis buy expensive things with YOUR money and then make fun of
you for being this dumb.

The worst part about this involuntary servitude is that the cruel
and criminal Israelis use YOUR money for arms to murder Arabs on a
daily basis, and sometimes they also kill Americans with your money.
So every American taxpayer is guilty of murder because under the law
anyone who pays someone to commit murder is equally guilty.

[Topaz]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 20:43:26 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:

>
>Stated differently, when is getting an abortion "wrong?"

When the baby is healthy and White.

>
>Mifepristone (RU-486), for instance, is it OK to use if a woman
>elects?

No.

[JAB]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:13:34 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>>Stated differently, when is getting an abortion "wrong?"
>
>When the baby is healthy and White.

One may want to consider that Africa is considered "the cradle of the
human race."(1)

That "20 Percent of Neanderthal Genome Lives On in Modern Humans."(2)

Moreover, that the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted
model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically
modern human..."(3)

1.
http://www.voanews.com/content/african-genome-project-highlights-migration-history/2545011.html

2.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/

3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

[Richard Falken]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And being a mother should be a real job with a real paycheck from the
> government.

If you think it should be a job, create a firm and pay for it. Don't
force everybody to pay for it.

In old times it was a convenient arrangement... the woman married the
man and the man sustained the woman. Interests for modern women have
swifted and now imost people does not consider that model a convenient
solution. I am nobody to judge if it has been for better or worse,
because that is something for involved people to decide themselves.

> There are laws about child neglect.

The fact there is a law does not mean that law is respected, enforced or
applied in practice.

- --
Richard Falken: Epic Literature.
http://richard-falken.com
GPG key: http://richard-falken.com/files/648179F2.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlSAbnQACgkQ/FkZo7NRwi2xcQD/Z35vZ3trOMuGu/Pfebx6sUvf
r0f2qcEf6ubaery63i0A/0on3Khl6HWdyFIXz6XJZYlu5TGn4t/BB08Q8MBVAqBi
=IjUq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Topaz]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:23:41 +0000 (UTC), Richard Falken
<richar...@richard-falken.com> wrote:


>If you think it should be a job, create a firm and pay for it. Don't
>force everybody to pay for it.

No, it should be a real job and paid like policemen and others are
paid. White children are the most important thing. Right now the most
intelligent women get careers instead of children. That will only
change if we change the system.

>In old times it was a convenient arrangement... the woman married the
>man and the man sustained the woman. Interests for modern women have
>swifted and now imost people does not consider that model a convenient
>solution.

They don't consider the model convenient because being a mother isn't
a real job. We should change that.

> I am nobody to judge if it has been for better or worse,
>because that is something for involved people to decide themselves.
>

>The fact there is a law does not mean that law is respected, enforced or
>applied in practice.

[Topaz]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:33:37 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:13:34 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Stated differently, when is getting an abortion "wrong?"
>>
>>When the baby is healthy and White.
>
>One may want to consider that Africa is considered "the cradle of the
>human race."(1)
>
>That "20 Percent of Neanderthal Genome Lives On in Modern Humans."(2)
>
>Moreover, that the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted
>model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically
>modern human..."(3)
>

"The Great Separation, in which proto-Whites left Africans behind, was
a turning point in the upward evolution of Man. Have we reached
another, downward, turning point?

Only the most ambitious of the early humans in Africa possessed the
curiosity to venture beyond their "comfort zone" and migrate out of
the continent in search of new adventures and opportunities. It was
this northward migration that exposed our progenitors to the new
climates and environments that would guide their evolution. This was
the historic moment that signaled the future birth of our race and all
its advancements-and the relatively backward nature of those tribes
who remained in the tropics.

Leaving their predecessors behind, the fledgling stock pushed onward.
Changing selection pressures would favor those mutations that bestowed
upon the new stock reasoning abilities, deductive thinking, and logic.
These traits would be necessary in order for the new breed of man, the
White man, to survive the colder climates to the north.
The winter season brings new challenges and obstacles to the stock.
For months at a time the fertile soil becomes a frozen, barren land,
incapable of cultivation-an inhospitable climate where even short
exposures can quickly lead to frostbite and death. Gone were the days
of endless warmth and pursuing only those behaviors that offered the
reward of immediate gratification. The new breed needed to have the
vision to see into the future and make plans ahead of time, if they
were to survive.

Through a long and rigorous process, subsistence hunting and food
gathering, and building temporary structures from mud or straw were
replaced by agriculture, domestication of livestock, and true
architecture. These are among hallmarks of civilization achieved by
early Whites. And it was only when the fundamental problems of day-to-
day survival had been solved that the mind could be free to ponder the
higher things in life-and the infinite possibilities of the future. A
future with automobiles, refrigerators, television, radios, cell
phones, satellites, and space travel. Look around you: the White man
invented virtually everything you see.

The paucity of invention by sub-Saharan Africans-it is virtually
nil-is evident. This lack of creative thinking is so because the
Africans left behind did not follow the proto-Whites along their
migration routes out of Africa-and hence did not evolve in the same
way. It was the genetic response to the changing selection pressures
generated by the exposure to the colder climates of the north that
elicited the changes in the genome that made our race, civilization,
and mighty technology possible.

To this day, the Blacks who remain in their cradle of comfort along
the equatorial zones of the earth, as well as those transplanted
around the world by slavery in recent centuries, remain several steps
below the White men and women of the West in measured intelligence,
self-restraint, civilized behavior, artistic and scientific
accomplishments, and sexual morality.

Just as the transitions from ape-like creatures to pre-man and then to
early African man were giant steps for mankind, so too was the
transformation of early African man into the White European race
during his eons-long journey to the north. It was Whites who gave us
the architecture of the Parthenon, the Pantheon and St. Basil's
cathedral, the music of Mozart and Beethoven, the artwork of
Michelangelo and Monet, and the vision of Galileo. It was the vast
collection of knowledge assimilated by the white European minds of
scientists like Newton and Maxwell that gave us our vast understanding
of chemistry and the laws of physics-and all the power that implies.
Meanwhile, the tribes of sub-Saharan Africa, regardless of where they
may have relocated in modern times, are still swatting flies, digging
grubs and sacrificing chickens.

In some ways, slavery was the best thing that ever happened to the
Blacks-who never could have found their way to America (and the
gravy-train provided by guilt-ridden Whites) on their own. Even today,
native Blacks have never shown the capability to build a boat capable
of crossing the Atlantic. Enslavement, torture, rape, and murder were
hardly unique to the Black slaves taken to America-such was the norm
in Africa (most of the transported slaves were already slaves while
there) and slavery remains an institution there to this day. In our
world's rich history of war, every race has suffered brutal treatment,
attempted genocide, and forced emigration at the hands of rival races
and nations. Even today in Africa, Blacks are hunted down, raped,
tortured, enslaved, and killed by the millions-at the hands of their
own "brothers."

Here in America, Blacks enjoy ample food, clean water, and the
opportunity for a good education, as well as the innumerable modern
conveniences we all take for granted. Blacks get to be entertainment
stars and athletes... but still, they complain about the White man.
They riot in the streets and commit a disproportionately high amount
of crime. Even very successful Blacks, who "have it all," like O. J.
Simpson, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jackson find it difficult to rise
above their genetic propensity for violence or disrespect toward
others. The savage behavior of Black sports stars toward White women
is so legendary that it's become a part of folklore and taken almost
for granted, as is the brutal deviant sexual behavior of Black men in
prison, with young White males the usual victims.

Most alarming to decent Whites is the current push in America for
White girls to misuse their wombs as cradles for primitive Congoid
genes-instead of for the sacred purpose for which they were intended.
While such "mothers" are exalted by the Jewish media as shining
beacons of light for a new, multiracial society, their children have
been condemned to inherit genes hundreds of thousands of years behind
those that built the West. They have been robbed of their genetic
potential. The mother and her thousands of generations of ancestors'
contribution to the forward evolution of life have come to a
screeching halt. The African DNA wraps itself like a parasitic vine
around the White helix, chocking the life out of it. This is an act of
genocide against our people, and should be prosecuted as such.
Schools, under the thumb of our enemies or in the thrall of the
"equality" religion, have relaxed academic eligibility requirements.
They must eliminate all evidence of racial inequality and "close the
education gap" between Whites and non-Whites-or risk losing funding.
If we can't bring the minorities up to the achievement levels of the
Whites, we'll bring the Whites down to their level. If we can't bring
the bottom of the bell curve up, we'll bring the top down. That way,
they'll all be equal-equally stupid.

And is that not what we are seeing-not just in the schools, but
everywhere in our society?

When you look around, do you see evidence that Blacks have conformed
to White standards of culture, civility, and grace? -- or do you see
Whites conforming to Black norms of disrespect, crudity, ugliness, and
ignorance? Do you see Black kids walking down the street dressed in
fine clothes, listening to Mozart, and carrying their physics books?
-- or are you more likely to see White children wearing baggy gang
clothes, listening to "rap," sporting multiple body piercings (an
African custom), speaking Ebonics, with a concealed crack pipe in
their pocket, and obsessed with empty, lower-than-animal sex?
On the whole, have the Whites influenced the Blacks in a positive
direction, or have the Blacks influenced the Whites in a negative
direction? Even if the answer is "some of both," there is no way to
argue that we of the West have gained in any way by the association."

Fritz Wuehler

[JAB]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:53:47 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Only the most ambitious of the early humans in Africa possessed the
>curiosity to venture beyond their "comfort zone" and migrate out of
>the continent in search of new adventures and opportunities.

I really doubt the "migration motivation" is known, but needless to
say, survival needs (food, water, etc) tends to be common among
natives moving, especially when the 'herd' has over-populated land
with limited resources.

Fritz needs to keep abreast with the news, and get an education:


11/8/14

There Is No Such Thing as Race

In 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans
belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality
but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international
panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and
psychologists.

A great deal of evidence had accumulated by that time to support this
conclusion, and the scientists involved were those who were conducting
research and were most knowledgeable about the topic of human
variation. Since that time similar statements have been published by
the American Anthropological Association and the American Association
of Physical Anthropologists, and an enormous amount of modern
scientific data has been gathered to justify this conclusion.

http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

[JAB]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:51:35 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>No, it should be a real job

Johnny Paycheck says "You can take this job and shove it"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPrSVkTRb24

and I'm sure there will be women who agree.

[Topaz]

More American Women Not Having Children
Reuters
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100625/lf_nm_life/us_children_report

More American women are choosing not to have children than three
decades ago, according to a new report. Nearly 20 percent of older
women do not have children, compared to 10 percent in the 1970s, the
Pew Research Center said. .. .. Education also is a factor in a
woman's choice to be a mother. The more educated women are, the higher
the childless rate is.


"The net effect of feminism is to make any population that practices
it, dumber. The overall IQ of any population practicing feminism, will
over time become lower. Why is that? Because the women with high IQ's
of any such society will be drawn into the feminist web, and they will
fail to reproduce at even a replacement rate.

What is it about feminism that seeks out and destroys intelligence?
Here are a few factors:

One of the primary goals of feminism is to promote the freeing of
women from the "mundane" task of raising children. Feminism has set as
one of its goals: zero children for women; a goal which is of course
suicidal, but that does not slow them down.

Should a woman, who practices the religion of feminism, become
pregnant, she will be encouraged by her fellow feminists to have an
abortion, and terminate the child's life within her.

Women who are feminists, are driven to have careers. So, even if they
want to have children, they view that as something to be done later,
and to be done quickly. In other words, they will have only one, or at
the most two children, if they get around to it at all. If they fail
to have this attitude, they fear that the childbearing process will
destroy their careers.

Women who do the best in school, the most intelligent, will be the
most sought after by the feminist clergy who dominated the school
system. These bright young women, will be pushed and directed away
from any thoughts of being a wife and mother as a career. They will be
pounded with rhetoric, and lies, about how terrible past women had it,
and how important it is that they not give in and "go traditional." By
the time they have finished college they have been through a top
quality brainwashing campaign, and it is very unlikely that they will
be able to overcome it on their own.
What happens when all of the brightest young ladies fail to have
children? It will leave only the less intelligent women to shoulder
the burden of carrying on the most important task of all: creating the
next generation. Women who are not doing well in school, do not draw
the feminist sharks to them. They are allowed to proceed on their own
course, and the Leftist propaganda, framed for confusing the
intelligent mind into acceptance, passes lesser minds by. These woman,
who often make wonderful mothers, will go out into the world and they
will have families, as they should. However the higher IQ ladies are
lost to the gene pool.

If you think about it, it is the equivalent of an enemy army coming
into a country and shooting all of the most intelligent men in the
country. Those high IQ individuals will have their genes removed from
the gene pool, and the next generation will be that much dumber than
the previous generation. Being done generation after generation, the
results of this feminist sifting process will accumulate over time. As
it runs its course, there will be fewer and fewer intelligent people
in each generation.

In America today, thanks to Leftist philosophy in general, and
feminism specifically, the best and brightest in our society are
reproducing at a level well below the replacement level of 2.1
children. (The replacement level is the number of children, on average
a group of families must have in order for that group to maintain its
current population and to replace itself.) In fact the latest number I
have heard is they are producing 1.5 children on average.
Besides having dismantled our world class school system, the Leftists
are now stealing our most intelligent children from the future
generations by promoting the feminist religion to the members of our
society. We will slowly but surely be forced into being a dumb,
uneducated people who will be only too happy to reside in the third
world society that is planned for our future.

Taking genetic inheritance into consideration, would halt feminism in
its tracks. What our society should be doing is to encourage the most
intelligent women to reproduce in as large numbers as is physically
possible, rather than hanging a "Condemned for a Career" sign over
their womb. By having high IQ women producing large families we would
raise the average IQ of the next generation. That means we would
increase the standard of living for that new generation, because
standard of living is directly tied to IQ. There are studies which
show that criminal behavior is tied to lower IQ and that people with
higher IQs are more likely to be law abiding citizens. So, by chucking
feminism out the door, for the next generation, we can raise the
intelligence, the standard of living, and at the same time lower the
crime rate.

Of course that will not mean anything to the average feminist. They
are not interested in future generations, or else they would not
support abortion, which has killed more young citizens of future
America than there are people in the entire country of Canada.
Feminists are only interested in power for themselves. Everything else
is mere trapping, and window dressing. People like that are not open
to reason. They are not sympathetic to other's difficulties. They are
focused on their own selfish gain, not America's future."
http://www.macstand.com

[Topaz]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:05:58 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>
>In 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
>Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans
>belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality
>but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international
>panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and
>psychologists.

The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
mixing Whites with other races. Because of this it will get harder
and harder to find White neighborhoods (good neighborhoods) to live
in. We should preserve our race by having a homeland of our own.

Our opponents say it is impossible to have White homeland because
they say we can not determine who is White and who is not. Even though
they can determine this easily enough when they want affirmative
action, they say that we can not.

It is the same as if they said we can not determine red cars from
cars that are not red. They would say that it is impossible to call a
car red until we have an exact definition of what is red. It would be
reasonable if they pointed out that some cars are borderline and it
would be hard to say if they are red or not. But that is not what they
are saying. They are saying that we can not in any case tell if a car
is red or not.

If a car looks red enough to me then I will call it red. And if
people look White enough to me then I will call them White.

[Richard Falken]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
> mixing Whites with other races.

hahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH *HA*HA*HA*HA*HA*

Really, I had not laugthed that much at an Internet post since a long
time ago.

No more comments.

[Topaz]

"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/

Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.

He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest
crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.

He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the
world. etc, etc.

He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.

Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.

He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and hear it for yourself.."

Tommy

[JAB]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 05:04:12 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.

"Highest birth rate in Europe + highest divorce rate + highest
percentage of women working outside the home..."

Hmm, it has the the world's biggest hot tub, no wonder the birth and
divorce rate are thru the roof. :-)

[JAB]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:20:50 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The main goal of America is to destroy White civilization by
>mixing Whites with other races.

Catherine Bach, part Mexican and part German, had her legs insured for
$1,000,000, when she worked on The Dukes of Hazzard.

[Topaz]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 13:09:37 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>"Highest birth rate in Europe + highest divorce rate + highest
>percentage of women working outside the home..."
>
>Hmm, it has the the world's biggest hot tub, no wonder the birth and
>divorce rate are thru the roof. :-)
>

Highest birth rate in Europe isn't really that high.

White Population in the World Set to Drop from 17% to 7% by 2050
While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
accelerating beyond all expectations. Immigration reduced the
percentage of Whites in the US from 99% when the US Constitution was
written to only 71% today, and similar patterns are being followed in
several European countries because of the failure by their governments
to do anything about unbridled immigration.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8712/population2hm0.gif

[Topaz]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 13:13:27 -0600, JAB <he...@toadsfoot.net> wrote:


>Catherine Bach, part Mexican and part German, had her legs insured for
>$1,000,000, when she worked on The Dukes of Hazzard.

The Jewish controlled media promotes race mixing.

"Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE
problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the
third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white
countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan,
but nobody says Japan should solve this RACE problem by
bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote
with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY
white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e.,
intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem
would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were
brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a
RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK
problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and
what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of
genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable
conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

[JAB]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:45:32 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The Jewish controlled media promotes race mixing.

It's Testosterone!

"The ancient Greeks considered war rape of women "socially acceptable
behaviour well within the rules of warfare", and warriors considered
the conquered women "legitimate booty, useful as wives, concubines,
slave labor or battle-camp trophy"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence

[JAB]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 03:43:46 -0600, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>While the populations of Europe, Russia, and the US have levelled off
>and even decreased, the populations of China and Africa are
>accelerating beyond all expectations.

US(125) and UK(146)are much higher than China(152)

Population growth rate

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=24

[Topaz]

Zimbabwe is (2) for example. China has a law limiting children.