Trump’s not Hitler, he’s Mussolini: How GOP anti-intellectualism created a modern fascist movement in America (Slate)

[brexit insanity]

In an interview with Slate, the historian of fascism Robert Paxton warns
against describing Donald Trump as fascist because “it’s almost the most
powerful epithet you can use.” But in this case, the shoe fits. And
here is why.

Like Mussolini, Trump rails against intruders (Mexicans) and enemies
(Muslims), mocks those perceived as weak, encourages a violent reckoning
with those his followers perceive as the enemy within (the roughing up of
protesters at his rallies), flouts the rules of civil political discourse
(the Megyn Kelly menstruation spat), and promises to restore the nation
to its greatness not by a series of policies, but by the force of his own
personality (“I will be great for” fill in the blank).

To quote Paxton again, this time from his seminal “The Anatomy of
Fascism”: “Fascist leaders made no secret of having no program.” This
explains why Trump supporters are not bothered by his ideological
malleability and policy contradictions: He was pro-choice before he was
pro-life; donated to politicians while now he rails against that
practice; married three times and now embraces evangelical Christianity;
is the embodiment of capitalism and yet promises to crack down on free
trade. In the words of the Italian writer Umberto Eco, fascism was “a
beehive of contradictions.” It bears noting that Mussolini was a
socialist unionizer before becoming a fascist union buster, a journalist
before cracking down on free press, a republican before becoming a
monarchist.

Like Mussolini, Trump is dismissive of democratic institutions. He
selfishly guards his image of a self-made outsider who will “dismantle
the establishment” in the words of one of his supporters. That this
includes cracking down on a free press by toughening libel laws, engaging
in the ethnic cleansing of 11 million people (“illegals”), stripping away
citizenship of those seen as illegitimate members of the nation (children
of the “illegals”), and committing war crimes in the protection of the
nation (killing the families of suspected terrorists) only enhances his
stature among his supporters. The discrepancy between their love of
America and these brutal and undemocratic methods does not bother them
one iota. To borrow from Paxton again: “Fascism was an affair of the gut
more than of the brain.” For Trump and his supporters, the struggle
against “political correctness” in all its forms is more important than
the fine print of the Constitution.

To be fair, there are many differences between Italian Fascism of
interwar Europe and Trumpism of (soon to be) post-Obama America. For
one, Mussolini was better read and more articulate than Trump. Starting
out as a schoolteacher, the Italian Fascist read voraciously and was
heavily influenced by the German and French philosophers Friedrich
Nietzsche and Jean-Marie Guyau, respectively. I doubt Trump would know
who either of these two people were. According to the Boston Globe,
Trump speaks at the level of a fourth grader.

There are other more consequential differences, of course: the interwar
Italy was a much bigger mess than the USA is today; the democratic
institutions of this country are certainly more resilient and durable
than those of the young unstable post-World War I Italy; the economy,
both U.S. and worldwide, is not in the apocalyptic state it was in the
interwar period; and the demographics of the USA mitigate against the
election of a racist demagogue. So, Trump’s blackshirts are not marching
on Washington, yet.

Also, as a historian I have learned to beware of historical analogies and
generally eschew them whenever I can, particularly when it comes to an
ideology that during World War II caused the deaths of 60 million human
beings. The oversaturation of our discourse with Hitler comparisons is
not only exasperating for any historian, but is offensive to the memory
of Hitler’s many victims most notably the six million Jews his regime
murdered in cold blood.

Finally, rather than explaining it, historical analogies often distort
the present, sometimes with devastating consequences. The example that
comes to mind is the Saddam-is-like-Hitler analogy many in the George W.
Bush administration used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was
an unmitigated disaster. The overuse, or misuse, of a historical analogy
can also make policy makers more hesitant to act with equally disastrous
consequences: the prime examples are Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s when
the West attributed their inaction to stop the slaughter in each country
by arguing that these massacres were “not like the Holocaust.”

Thus, for a historical analogy to be useful to us, it has to advance our
understanding of the present. And the Trumpism-Fascism axis (pun
intended) does this in three ways: it explains the origins of Trump the
demagogue; it enables us to read the Trump rally as a phenomenon in its
own right; and it allows those of us who are unequivocally opposed to
hate, bigotry, and intolerance, to rally around an alternative, equally
historical, program: anti-fascism.

The Very Fascist Origins of Trumpism

That white supremacist groups back Donald Trump for president of the
United States, and his slowness to disavow the support of David Duke, all
illuminate the fascistic origins of Trump the phenomenon. In fact, Paxton
acknowledges that while Fascism began in France and Italy, “the first
version of the Klan in the defeated American south was arguably a
remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in
interwar Europe.” That the KKK was drawn to the Trump candidacy, and that
he refused to disavow them speak volumes about his fascistic roots.

Like Fascism, Trumpism has come about on the heels of a protracted period
of ideological restlessness. Within the Republican Party this
restlessness has resulted in a complete de-legitimization of the so-
called GOP establishment.

Benito Mussolini came to the scene in the 1920s at a time when all the
known “isms” of the time had lost their mojos. Conservatism, which since
the French Revolution had been advocating for monarchy, nobility, and
tradition, was dealt a devastating blow by the First World War, which
destroyed four major empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and
German), made universal male suffrage (mostly) the norm, and eliminated a
generation of aristocrats. Although initially seen as victorious,
liberalism, in its emphasis on equality, constitutions, parliaments, and
civil debates, quickly proved unable to solve the mammoth problems facing
Europe after the war. To the millions of unemployed, angry, and hungry
Europeans, the backroom politicking and obscure party debates seemed
petty at best, and deserving of destruction at worst. Shoving millions
of Europeans into nation-states they saw as alien to their ethnicity
created huge minority problems and sparked irredentist movements
including fascists and their many copycats. The success of Lenin’s
Bolsheviks in Russia and their protracted, terrifying, civil war made
Communism unpalatable for most Europeans.

Enter Fascism. Fascism promised people deliverance from politics.
Fascism was not just different type of politics, but anti-politics. On
the post-WWI ruins of the Enlightenment beliefs in progress and essential
human goodness, Fascism embraced emotion over reason, action over
politics. Violence was not just a means to an end, but the end in itself
because it brought man closer to his true inner nature. War was an
inevitable part of this inner essence of man. Millions of European men
had found this sense of purpose and camaraderie in the trenches of the
First World War and were not going to sit idly by while politicians took
it away from them after the war (famously, after the war Hitler was slow
to demobilize and take off his uniform). Fascists’ main enemies were not
just Marxist politicians, or liberal politicians, but politicians in
general.

It is therefore no coincidence that the most common explanation Trump
supporters muster when asked about their vote is that “he is no
politician.” Trump did not invent this anti-politics mood, but he tamed
it in accordance with his own needs. Ever since the election of Barack
Obama the Republicans have refused to co-govern. Senator Mitch
McConnell’s vow that his main purpose would be to deny the president a
second term was only the first of many actions by which the Republicans
have retreated from politics. The Tea Party wave meant an absolute
refusal to compromise on even the most essential issues, which were
central to the economic survival of the government if not the entire
country (the Debt ceiling fiasco anyone?!). But since then it has gotten
worse: now even the establishment Republicans who had been initially
demonized by the Tea Party, such as Mitch McConnell, have openly
abrogated their own constitutional powers by refusing to exercise them.
This has been most evident in their blanket refusal to even hold a
hearing for a Scalia replacement on the Supreme Court. In other words,
the Republicans themselves, not Trump, broke politics.

The anti-intellectualism of Trump has also been a long time in the
making. It was the Republican establishment that has for decades refused
to even consider the science of climate change and has through local
education boards strove to prevent the teaching of evolution. Although
not as explicit as the Fascists were in their efforts to use the woman’s
body for reproducing the nation, the Republican attempts at restricting
abortion rights, and women access to healthcare in general have often
been designed with the same purpose in mind. Of course American
historians have pointed to this larger strand of anti-intellectualism in
American politics, but what is different about this moment is that Trump
has successfully wedded this anti-Enlightenment mood with the anti-
political rage of the Republican base.

Still, for a fascist to be accepted as legitimate he has to move the
crowd and from the very beginning of his candidacy Trump has done this by
stoking racial animosity and grievances. It is no coincidence that the
Trump phenomenon emerges during the tenure of the first black President.
It bears remembering that Trump’s first flirtation with running for
office was nothing more than his insistent, nonsensical, irrational, and
blatantly racist demand that President Obama show his birth certificate
and his Harvard grades. This was more than a dog whistle to the angry
whites that the first black President was not only un-American,
literally, but that he was intellectually inferior to them, despite
graduating from Harvard Law. If one considers this “original sin” of
Trump then the KKK endorsement of his candidacy and Trump’s acceptance of
it seem less strange.

Like Mussolini, Trump is lucky in his timing. When Mussolini created his
Fascists in 1919 there were numerous other far right, authoritarian
movements popping up all over Europe. As Robert Paxton reminds us, by
the early 20th century Europe had gotten “swollen” by refugees, mostly
Ashkenazi Jews who had since the 1880s been escaping pogroms in Eastern
Europe. Culturally and religiously different they caused reactions
amongst the Europeans that are strikingly similar to the way in which
many European politicians have reacted to the influx of Muslim refugees
and migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. The Hungarian
government’s building of a fence to prevent Muslim migrants from coming
in and its rhetoric of foreign, Islamic, invasion is just one of more
noted examples of Islamophobic euphoria sweeping rightwing and fascistic
movements into power all across Europe. As Hugh Eakin points out in the
New York Review of Books, even Denmark, the beacon of civilized,
tolerant, Europe has become susceptible to the xenophobic fear mongering:
hate speech now passes for mainstream discussion (the Speaker of the
Danish Parliament claims Muslim migrants to be at “a lower stage of
civilization”). The head of the newly elected right-wing party in Poland,
Jarosław Kaczyński, has described migrants as “parasites” who bring
diseases.” Thus, it is no coincidence that Trump often references the
refugee crisis to point to the ineptitude of European politicians and to
simultaneously warn of a yet another jihadist terrorist attack. Trump
would feel perfectly at home in the company of the new generation of
European authoritarians like Viktor Orban of Hungary or Vladimir Putin of
Russia. He does not care that Putin considers America Russia’s historic
enemy because for Trump the real enemy is within.

The Trump Rally: An exercise in community building

If we historicize Trump in such a way, his rallies become much easier to
read. For Trump’s supporters, the pushing and shoving, and even the
outright violence, against protesters, and the menacingly carnivalesque
atmosphere are, to an extent, an end in itself. Just observe how groups
at Trump rallies spontaneously come together to roughen up a protester.
The sheer emotional intensity of their facial expressions shows us
precisely why they support Trump and why no policy proposal from any of
his competitors can ever come close to diminishing Trump in his
supporters’ eyes. Violence is electrifying and community building as
much as it is devastating for those on the receiving end. Action over
politics.

But it bears reminding that the crowds have transformed Trump as well.
At the beginning of the campaign he seemed taken aback by protesters, but
recently he has begin to egg them on (“I’d like to punch him in the
face”). Simultaneously, he has gotten more confident on stage, bolder in
his outrage proposals (ban all Muslims from the U.S.), and more
theatrical.

This transformation brings to mind a moment in the history of another
authoritarian, the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic whose
ascent to power wrecked the country of Yugoslavia and caused a series of
vicious civil wars that killed hundreds of thousands of people and
displaced millions. When Milosevic first appeared on TV he did so as a
mid-level member of the Communist party and spoke with the dry jargon of
a Marxist intellectual. In 1987, party bosses sent Milosevic to the
volatile Serbian province of Kosovo to quell a riot by Serb locals who
were complaining that the majority Albanians had been perpetrating
violence, and even genocide, against them. Feeling abandoned by the
government, the Serb nationalists surrounded Milosevic telling him that
Albanians were beating them. Milosevic hesitated. He began to employ
the party jargon of national unity and promised to solve their problems,
but the crowd grew rowdier and at one point, Milosevic looked scared.
That’s when he uttered the phrase that would transform him from an
anonymous politician to a Serb nationalist leader: “no one can dare to
beat you!” The crowd erupted in cheers, propelling his career during
which he destroyed not only his own party, but also the country at
large. He would die nineteen years later in a prison cell at the
International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, Netherlands.

This is not to say that Trump will cause a civil war in the U.S., or that
he will commit war crimes (although he did promise to do the latter).
But the destruction of the GOP looks all but imminent should he be the
nominee. We should be warned that fascist demagogues are often made on
the sly, almost imperceptibly, and that the fires they stir up tend to
spread rather quickly. The pull of history on individuals is often
inexorable. In his excellent portrayal of Nazification of German life,
the historian Peter Fritzsche recounts a story of Karl Dürkefälden, a
German living in the town of Peine during Hitler’s ascent to power. An
opponent of Nazis, Karl expressed in his diary a profound sense of shock
at how quickly his whole family—mother, father, and his sister—underwent
a conversion to Nazism during the early 1933. In one particularly
poignant scene, Karl is standing at the window of his house alongside his
wife looking at the Nazi May Day celebrations, in which the entire, now
Nazified, community participates, including his father. He struggles to
remain on the sidelines not because he is a convinced Nazi, but because
his entire community is caught up in what he called Umstellung, “a rapid…
adjustment or conversion to Nazism,” in the words of Fritzsche.

Individuals who successfully resist historical Umstellungs are
unfortunately few and far between. This is why we celebrate them. Those
who succumb to them are much more common. The case of a young man by the
name of Drazen Erdemovic from the Bosnian war is telling in this regard.
Born in a mixed Croat-Serb family, the twenty-four year old Erdemovic
found himself in 1995 a part of the Bosnian Serb firing squad executing
Muslim men around the town of Srebrenica: by his own admission, he
personally murdered seventy Muslims. After surrendering to the war
crimes tribunal in the Hague, Erdemovic said:

I have lost many very good friends of all nationalities because of that
war, and I am convinced that all of them, all of my friends, were not in
favor of a war. I am convinced of that. But simply they had no other
choice. This war came and there was no way out. The same happened to me.

“They had no other choice.” “This war came and there was no way out.”
Once unleashed, the demons of history are too difficult for any
individual to resist on his/or her/ own no matter what their backgrounds
or political beliefs of the moment. This is why resistance to such
atrocities always requires a movement, a community, and in fighting
Fascists this was Anti-Fascism.

Branding Trumpism Fascist has the political benefit of mobilizing
disparate forces in the fight against him just like the antifascist
coalition of World War II led to unprecedented alliances between
ideologically disparate forces (the Soviet-American alliance being the
primary example). In the American context, seeing Trump as a 2016
reincarnation of Mussolini can unite Democrats, Republicans,
independents, Naderites, neo-cons, constitutionalists, and others, into a
broad anti-Fascist coalition which would bring Trump down and save our
democracy.

In conclusion, the Fascism analogy is admittedly not a perfect fit. When
it comes to ideologies, no analogy is. This is because ideologies change
through time. The religious anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages was very
different from its racial reincarnation during the nineteenth century,
the latter of which was picked up by the Nazis (although religious anti-
Semitism still remained a part of it). The anti-imperial, liberal,
nationalism of the first half of the nineteenth century was very
different from its more virulent, expansionist, and repressive kind at
the beginning of the twentieth. Stalin’s Bolshevism was much scarier and
arbitrarily deadlier than Lenin’s. In other words, just like the overuse
of historical analogies should not make us too quick to embrace them, a
search for a perfect ideological replica of interwar Fascism should not
blind us to its ugly re-emergence in 2016.

Today, the echoes of Fascism are all too audible to anyone willing to
hear them. Having lost one country, Yugoslavia, I really don’t want to
lose another one.

Fedja Buric is an assistant professor of history at Bellarmine University
(the views in this piece are his own and do not represent the university).

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/
trumps_not_hitler_hes_mussolini_how_gop_anti_intellectualism_created_a_modern_fascist_movement_in_america/

[DVH]

On 04/05/2016 17:58, brexit insanity wrote:

> the Fascism analogy is admittedly not a perfect fit.

Every GOP prez since Reagan has been described by lefties as "fascist".

[saracene]

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

[abelard]

On Wed, 4 May 2016 10:54:10 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

that's called an each way bet

>> Thus, for a historical analogy to be useful to us, it has to advance our
>> understanding of the present. And the Trumpism-Fascism axis (pun
>> intended) does this in three ways: it explains the origins of Trump the
>> demagogue; it enables us to read the Trump rally as a phenomenon in its
>> own right; and it allows those of us who are unequivocally opposed to
>> hate, bigotry, and intolerance, to rally around an alternative, equally
>> historical, program: anti-fascism.

virtue signalling

he just pointed out that mussolini regarded himself as an
intellectual..
rather like much of this dribble as it steadily gurgles down the
plughole of leftist blather

therefore rest binned unread

Hitler commenting on the 25-point programme:
“The New Testament is also full of contradictions, but that hasn’t
prevented the spread of Christianity.”
As reported by Hanfstaengl, Kershaw, p.277


this is 100 years later...the problems of the modern world involve
the transition from work to leisure
very few are adapting to that fact

politicians have to solve current problems, there is no rule book...
trump at least thinks for himself...hillary doesn't, o'barmy
doesn't
it is obvious that he is learning fast...the us constitution is
written to block dictatorships...one can just hope it works
as intended...
o'barmy has worked hard to undermine it...that is how
the process of losing freedom operates...bit by bit until
the governors blow out



--
www.abelard.org

[saracene]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 6:02:10 PM UTC+1, brexit insanity wrote:

> Starting
> out as a schoolteacher, the Italian Fascist read voraciously and was
> heavily influenced by the German and French philosophers Friedrich
> Nietzsche and Jean-Marie Guyau, respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Guyau

Not a well konwn figure,

[Topaz]

On Wed, 04 May 2016 20:19:40 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>it is obvious that he is learning fast...the us constitution is
> written to block dictatorships...one can just hope it works
> as intended...

It failed. America is ruled by the Jews. They control the media for
one thing, but that is the most important thing.


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



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

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

[abelard]

On Thu, 05 May 2016 16:27:55 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 May 2016 20:19:40 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>it is obvious that he is learning fast...the us constitution is
>> written to block dictatorships...one can just hope it works
>> as intended...
>
>It failed. America is ruled by the Jews.

you're an idiot

rest binned unread as usual with your dribbling idiocy


--
www.abelard.org

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 10:14:11 +0200) it happened abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <agkoib5ttrkpb8fgf...@4ax.com>:

I am not sure 'merrica is still ruled by Jews (if it ever was).
More under the impression it is being ruled more and more by a bunch of black racists.
Apart from all the lost wars by the low IQ group, say Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libia..
and their manufacturing of ever more useless weapons (F35 stealth, 'tronix), and their clamping down and
controlling commie-nuka-aid-ion and monitoring their own people..
Blacks multiplying at an ever higher rate will change that N America into a third
world country, if it is not already.
The ever growing deficit, some states like Puerto Rico financially ruined,
ever more wrong decisions, alienating of allies.

Trump _could_ change that for the positive, but for how long?
The inevitable will happen.

There are other much more direct indicators,
long time ago when learning a bit about stock markets there was this thing about 3 tops,
followed by a disaster recession.
I just did see three tops in the
http://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/markets/overview/overview.asp?src=busfn
select '1 year', so, down it could go.
For the capitalist system the way out is usually start an other war, destroy everything,
draft human labor, to fight, creates jobs for the survivors to build everything again.
There is the jive about electric cars, nobody seems to be able to do the math,
that the grids and power plants are not enough to run all those cars.
Animals are more protected than humans...
An other big solar belly up case reminded me of Enron..

Saudi Arabia threatened to sell its US debt.. now that would be interesting :-)
That black guy from the white house ran over there, he must have promised them the sky
so they won't start selling, but US promises .. Saddam once was a friend too.

Anyways if Hillary gets elected things will crumble immediately, at least with Trump
you may get some more years before WW3, of course Trump will win,
Hillary has no chance, even that group know knows that 'hope and change' did not help a lot apart
from raising their taxes.

So, let's see, with N America of the map, Mexico .. soon EU will have to accommodate millions of N American
refugees who cross the Atlantic on rubber boats and arrive heavily radioactively polluted on the coast line.
maybe they flee to Alaska too, but that is burning down already :-)

It is interesting, what also bugs me if that if you look again at that financial site everything but Mexico is down
some 30 % or more (China), once people find shares is not a good investment and start buying solid gold
the whole game changes, civilizations come and civilizations go.
and maybe humanity with it.
Mosquitos will be.

I am an optimist :-)

[abelard]

On Fri, 06 May 2016 10:14:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 10:14:11 +0200) it happened abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <agkoib5ttrkpb8fgf...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2016 16:27:55 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 May 2016 20:19:40 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>it is obvious that he is learning fast...the us constitution is
>>>> written to block dictatorships...one can just hope it works
>>>> as intended...
>>>
>>>It failed. America is ruled by the Jews.
>>
>>you're an idiot
>>
>>rest binned unread as usual with your dribbling idiocy
>
>I am not sure 'merrica is still ruled by Jews (if it ever was).
>More under the impression it is being ruled more and more by a bunch of black racists.

well, at the least it's a better theory than the loony toons theory!

the rest i have scanned but there is so much in there...i'm glad you
remain an optimist

--
www.abelard.org

[Siri Cruise]

In article <5ctoib9vl1er027e0...@4ax.com>,

abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:

> >>>It failed. America is ruled by the Jews.
> >>
> >>you're an idiot
> >>
> >>rest binned unread as usual with your dribbling idiocy
> >
> >I am not sure 'merrica is still ruled by Jews (if it ever was).
> >More under the impression it is being ruled more and more by a bunch of
> >black racists.
>
> well, at the least it's a better theory than the loony toons theory!
>
> the rest i have scanned but there is so much in there...i'm glad you
> remain an optimist

Kiss all the Israeli butt you want, you're still a racist.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
If you assume the final scene is a dying delusion as Tom Cruise drowns below
the Louvre, then Edge of Tomorrow has a happy ending. Kill Tom repeat..

[abelard]

On Fri, 06 May 2016 06:38:20 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <5ctoib9vl1er027e0...@4ax.com>,
> abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> >>>It failed. America is ruled by the Jews.
>> >>
>> >>you're an idiot
>> >>
>> >>rest binned unread as usual with your dribbling idiocy
>> >
>> >I am not sure 'merrica is still ruled by Jews (if it ever was).
>> >More under the impression it is being ruled more and more by a bunch of
>> >black racists.
>>
>> well, at the least it's a better theory than the loony toons theory!
>>
>> the rest i have scanned but there is so much in there...i'm glad you
>> remain an optimist
>
>Kiss all the Israeli butt you want, you're still a racist.

you are still a dishonest fool...

you must be a socialist


--
www.abelard.org

[Topaz]

Vice President Joe Biden said:

"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are - all of us - as much or more
than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," Biden
told a gathering of Jewish leaders on May 21 in Washington, DC. "The
truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such
an essential part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish
heritage is American heritage," he also said.

Biden knows what's he talking about. He was a US Senator for 26 years,
held important posts in Congress, and was twice a US presidential
candidate. Few men have been more deeply involved in Washington
politics, or are more intimately familiar with the realities of power
in American public life.

Even though Jews make up only one or two percent of the US population,
the Jewish role in American cultural and political life has been
"outsized" and "immense," Biden said.

"You make up eleven percent of the seats in the United States
Congress," he told his Jewish audience. He might also have mentioned
that three of the nine members of the US Supreme Court are Jewish, and
that Jews are vastly overrepresented in other high-level federal,
state and city government posts, including chairman of the Federal
Reserve System, and as the mayors of America's three most populous
cities.

"The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has
had such an outsized influence per capita," he also said. Biden went
on to speak about the Jewish role in shaping popular attitudes with
regard to race relations, the role of women in society, and "gay
rights," and thereby in changing policies, laws and behavior.

"I believe what affects the [social- political] movements in America,
what affects our attitudes in America, are as much the culture and the
arts as anything else ... It wasn't anything we [politicians]
legislatively did," he went on. "It was [such television shows as]
'Will and Grace,' it was the social media. Literally. That's what
changed peoples' attitudes. That's why I was so certain that the vast
majority of people would embrace, and rapidly embrace" same-sex
marriage.

"Think - behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes,
whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish
leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is
immense," he said.

[Topaz]

On Fri, 06 May 2016 10:14:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I am not sure 'merrica is still ruled by Jews (if it ever was).
>More under the impression it is being ruled more and more by a bunch of black racists.

No, it is -for- Black racists because the Jews hate the White race.
Blacks don't have that much money or power. Jews control the media
which amounts to having all the power.

Jews Do Control The Media
Elad Nehorai ("Manny Friedman") -- The Times of Israel
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media
... Let's be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control
the media. We've got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all
the big movie production companies it's almost obscene ... Did you
know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews? ... The truth
is, the anti-Semites got it right. We Jews have something planted in
each one of us that makes us completely different from every group in
the world ... We no longer have to change our names. We no longer have
to blend in like chameleons. We own a whole freaking country. Instead,
we can be proud of who we are, and simultaneously aware of our huge
responsibility - and opportunity.

What Hillary has always meant by change is everything for women and
non-Whites and everything against the White man.

>did not help a lot apart
>from raising their taxes.
>
>So, let's see, with N America of the map, Mexico .. soon EU will have to accommodate millions of N American
>refugees who cross the Atlantic on rubber boats and arrive heavily radioactively polluted on the coast line.
>maybe they flee to Alaska too, but that is burning down already :-)
>
>It is interesting, what also bugs me if that if you look again at that financial site everything but Mexico is down
>some 30 % or more (China), once people find shares is not a good investment and start buying solid gold
>the whole game changes, civilizations come and civilizations go.
>and maybe humanity with it.
>Mosquitos will be.
>
>I am an optimist :-)

[Topaz]

Liberating America From Israel

by Paul Findley

The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any
determined president
could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension
of aid by laying these facts before the American people:

Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to
annex the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become
Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in
Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until
Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are
committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious
conviction, they are determined to
prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West
Bank.

In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of
eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing
the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of
anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle.
With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long
periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards,
and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under
intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for
weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are
routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are
undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration
camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps
Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most
Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.

Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in
most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli
violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the
precepts of all major religious faiths.

How did the American people get into this fix?

Israel's U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate
about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and
effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S.
government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.

Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open
discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our
government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was
a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in
June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan
Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and
Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a
close watch on Congress.

For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in
either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle
East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel
have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in
previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill,
criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but
forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The
continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke
out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul
"Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were
defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel
forces.

As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily
biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs
year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally
lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress
behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.

However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news
media candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate
America's complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of
Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces,
using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank
last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the
boiling point.

Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of
helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should
suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel
seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead
to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not
tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.


Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois
for 22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member
of the American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.


Also See: http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/
Citizens for Fair Legislation ALERT: NO NEW AID TO ISRAEL
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1556560.php
Congressman Paul Findley: Liberating America From Israel
http://www.mediamonitors.net/findley2.html
Pat Buchanan: Why Politicians Prefer Israel over American
Interest?
http://amconmag.com/01_13_03/buchanan7.html

Israeli Minister - 'We've Become Barbarians'
http://rense.com/general33/become.htm

Israel's image of liberal democracy takes a battering
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/04/wisr04.xml&s
Sheet=/news/2003/01/04/ixworld.html
Israel Bans Christian Politician and Party from Election
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1845530.stm
Israel to Expel Christian Politician and non-Jewish Parties from
Knesset
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,866348,00.html
Row over Arabs' election ban
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/01/wisr01.
xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/01/ixnewstop.html

How Americas Zionist controlled media spin the facts.
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/98414_comment.php
American Media Controlled by Israeli Supporters
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Eric+Alterman+MSNBC+Israel&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3caaa1d0_1%40news.tm.net.my&rnum=1
The Myth of Barak's Generous Offer
http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html
Direct Financial Cost of Israel to US: $1.6 trillion and
growing
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
MAKING MERCHANDISE OUT OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD: SELLING THE UPCOMING
WAR IN
IRAQ http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/m2_s1.html

Zionism Unbound - Vidal Gored 16 Years Ago
http://www.rense.com/general32/unbound.htm
'It's Time To Get Tough With Israel' - Patriotic US Army Brig
General
http://www.rense.com/general33/tough.htm
Israel's Policy Of 'Covert Aggression'
http://www.rense.com/general31/ze.htm
ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM
http://abbc.com/historia/zionism/rokach.html
The Men From JINSA and CSP
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&c=1&s=vest
JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
http://rense.com/general18/JINSA.HTM

Christian Coalition Abandonment of Palestinian Christians is
Hypocritical http://www.mediamonitors.net/sherri64.html
Where does world-famous televangelist's money go?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845747.asp#BODY
Christian Patriarch of Holy Land calls for end of Oppressive
Israeli
occupation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2604761.stm
Zionism versus the Bible - Peace and Jutice on Earth or the
Extremism of
the 'Christian' Right? http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamson4.html
THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE - Christianity & The NWO
http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm
No Joy in Bethlehem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,865083,00.html
'Saddest Christmas Ever' in Bethlehem
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021225&cat=news&st=newsmideas
tdc

For Unbiased News, visit:
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.rense.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.thenation.com/
http://www.mediamonitors.net/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.counterpunch.com/
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.progressive.org/
http://www.yellowtimes.org/
http://www.latimes.com/

For Good Analysis and Commentary, visit:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/
http://www.robert-fisk.com/
http://www.iacenter.org/
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html
http://www.nader.org/public_interest.html
http://reese.king-online.com/
http://fair.org/media-beat/
http://avnery-news.co.il/english/

Please distribute....

[Topaz]

Socialism is a government doing something to help people.

Capitalism is the opposition to anything a government might do to help
people.

The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
if the White man is more qualified. America is founded on the idea
that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
short.

The problem with the schools is that they are PC. But the Jews and
their minions cleverly twist it so that "Socialism" is the problem and
not PC. Communism may of course be trash but so is Capitalism. Here is
a quote from Mein Kampf:

"the Jew seized upon the manifold possibilities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."

[abelard]

On Fri, 06 May 2016 15:51:00 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Socialism is a government doing something to help people.

you're an idiot...

rbu


--
www.abelard.org

[M.I.Wakefield]

"abelard" wrote in message
news:de9qib1o1j7ck1e4a...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 06 May 2016 15:51:00 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Socialism is a government doing something to help people.

> you're an idiot...

Idiot is one of his good points ... ask him what he went to prison for.

[abelard]

On Fri, 6 May 2016 19:25:47 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

he probably spent the time having mein kampf read to him
by a 'social' 'worker'


--
www.abelard.org

[Siri Cruise]

In article <a00qib1u14hg49t25...@4ax.com>,

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

> No, it is -for- Black racists because the Jews hate the White race.
> Blacks don't have that much money or power. Jews control the media
> which amounts to having all the power.

Listenning to a video, I learned Hitler declared because the US was run by Jews
and Blacks, it was safe to declare war because the earliest the US could attack
Germany was 1970.

You come from a long line of such intellectuals.

[saracene]

On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 9:51:27 PM UTC+1, Topaz wrote:
> Socialism is a government doing something to help people.
>

What did you go to prison for? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your posts.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 16:38:47 -0700) it happened Siri Cruise
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<chine.bleu-F5F14...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:

>In article <a00qib1u14hg49t25...@4ax.com>,
> Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it is -for- Black racists because the Jews hate the White race.
>> Blacks don't have that much money or power. Jews control the media
>> which amounts to having all the power.
>
>Listenning to a video, I learned Hitler declared because the US was run by Jews
>and Blacks, it was safe to declare war because the earliest the US could attack
>Germany was 1970.

You watched the wrong video,
was it not US that declared war on Germany, and Japan?
I mean after operation 'climb mount tanaka' or something?

IIRC Topas posted Hitlers full reply to that declaration of war by the US here?

With all this history [re]writing it is hard to tell, try wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_Germany_(1941)

As they did in Vietnam, Iraq, etc etc

Like a mad dog.
Same IQ too.
Nuculear
:-)

[abelard]

On Sat, 07 May 2016 08:28:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 16:38:47 -0700) it happened Siri Cruise
><chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
><chine.bleu-F5F14...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>
>>In article <a00qib1u14hg49t25...@4ax.com>,
>> Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, it is -for- Black racists because the Jews hate the White race.
>>> Blacks don't have that much money or power. Jews control the media
>>> which amounts to having all the power.
>>
>>Listenning to a video, I learned Hitler declared because the US was run by Jews
>>and Blacks, it was safe to declare war because the earliest the US could attack
>>Germany was 1970.
>
>You watched the wrong video,
>was it not US that declared war on Germany, and Japan?

germany/hitler declared war on the usa in solidarity with its
ally, japan

>I mean after operation 'climb mount tanaka' or something?
>
>IIRC Topas posted Hitlers full reply to that declaration of war by the US here?
>
>With all this history [re]writing it is hard to tell, try wikipedia?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_Germany_(1941)
>
>As they did in Vietnam, Iraq, etc etc
>
>Like a mad dog.
>Same IQ too.
>Nuculear
>:-)

--
www.abelard.org

[Topaz]

Capitalism and Communism are both disgusting. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.

According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. The Luddites were correct that something was very
rotten. But instead of smashing the machines, they should have smashed
Capitalism. Of course machines should be a blessing to mankind, but
Capitalism has made them a curse. Actually Capitalism is the curse.


Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to the capitalists and
followed the beliefs and values of capitalism. The apologists for
the Scrooges correctly point out that people only start business for a
profit. Of course that is true. Anyone can see that communism is a big
mistake. But wouldn't people start the business for only millions in
profits rather than billions? What if there were laws that made sure
working people got a reasonable share of the profit? Would that be so
terrible?

In a hypothetical case suppose in the future technology
progressed so far that all work was done by machines. Huge farms
gathering food and all automated. You would think that would be
heaven on earth. But not with capitalism. People would be worthless
according to capitalist supply and demand ideas. People wouldn't get
one loaf of bread because they would have no jobs.

Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.

We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible. There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.

[Topaz]

"The Jewish Question is really a question of survival. The Jews are a
syndicate...a "mafia" if you will. The one trait that makes them so
successful is their loyalty to one another. Jews stick together...an
admirable quality I might add. Couple this with the high intelligence
on average and you have a formidable force. The Jews have survived
for centuries in the Diaspora because of these two qualities. They
have refused to be assimilated.
The unfortunate aspect of this Jewish Syndicate is that they have been
working for some time to undermine Western civilization, Christian
values....moral values of any sort really. The Jews have learned,
through a sort of collective psychological tacit understanding, that
to survive, they must divide the host in which they live, demoralize
them, desensitize them, and throw them into moral and social chaos and
anarchy.
This is the root of the Jew's ideology...a tacit, unconscious,
collective psychology...a group instinct for survival. Unfortunately,
this Jewish collective psychology has lead the the Jews to organize
whole movements aimed at shaping their host nations to tolerate
them...and their power.
Jews have played a major role in the formation of Communism, political
correctness, modernity and its moral hedonism and nihilism,
"multi-culturalism" and "diversity", relativism, and all of the other
"isms" which have lead to the almost total destruction of Western
Civilization. Jews have not been wholly responsible for any or all of
these isms, but they have certainly played a prominent role in many of
the most destructive ideologies.
If one examines the issues of the day, one will inevitably find Jews
at the center of almost every one of those issues. Most of the time,
the centrality of the Jew is not apparent. More and more so however,
it is becoming apparent.
The "liberal" media is the Jewish media. Organizations like the ACLU
and what they have done to public education ...these are Jewish
organizations. Terrorism visited upon the US by Arabs who hate
us...because of our support of Israel and the Jews. The list goes on
and on...all one need do is a little research to find out.
The central questions we must ask ourselves are: "How do we counteract
the things that are destroying our society?"
The answer to that question begs another question: "What are some of
the things that are destroying our society?"
And after a close examination, we must ask ourselves in the end:
"Who is it that is promoting these things that are destroying our
society?"
THIS is the Jewish Question."
opus dei

[Topaz]

The Horned Visions of the Holocaust
by Robert Faurisson

The Holocaust of the Jews is a fiction. The number one
historian of this fictitious Holocaust is the Jewish-American Raul
Hilberg. It's number one witness is the Slovakian-British-Canadian Jew
Rudolf Vrba. The bible of the Holocaust religion is The Encyclopedia
of the Holocaust.

On examining these three sources closely, one realises that
in order to try to demonstrate the reality of the Holocaust, R.
Hilberg, R. Vrba, and the authors of this Jewish encyclopedia have
had recourse to silly stunts, nonsense, and twaddle that, behind a
phantasma cover, serve the most sordid interests. These Jews ask us,
in effect, to believe in:

1. -- A military tribunal's innate knowledge in the
matter of exceptional crimes purported to have been committed
against the Jews; the judges of this tribunal never visited "the
scene of the crime", never ordered any forensic studies, never saw
or described "the crime weapon"; there was never any international
investigative committee; this tribunal, as well as all those which
have, for the past fifty years and more, had to try "Nazis",
"collaborators" or revisionist authors, spared itself the trouble
of bringing forth evidence of what it took the liberty of calling,
without further ado, "facts of common knowledge" (sic) (1);

2. -- The existence of mind reading or telepathy in the vastness
of the German bureaucracy which, it seems, thanks to "an incredible
meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung
bureaucracy", supposedly took (one knows not where or how) all sorts
of initiatives, with the aim of the physical extermination of the
Jews;

3. -- The spontaneous generation of a coordination of all of these
exterminatory initiatives without recourse to either an order, a
plan or the least instruction on the part of Adolf Hitler or of any
Nazi at all (a concession has ended up being made to the revisionists:
the "Wannsee minutes" had nothing to do with a plan to exterminate the
Jews);

4. -- The hypostatic reality of the never-shown, never-described
Nazi gas chamber which, by media bludgeoning and all kinds of
artifice, has been planted in people's minds to the point that they
imagine that yes, indeed, they have in fact been shown this magic gas
chamber, or have had it described for them;

5. -- The magic of said slaughterhouses' operation for, if one looks
closely, they must have defied all the laws of physics and chemistry;

6. -- "Poetic licence" (sic) to reinforce the truth of the testimony;

7. -- The cabalistic processing of numbers, allowing a purported total
of 5 to 6 million Jewish victims to stay invariable even though --
essential parts of this whole -- the numbers of Jews having died at
Auschwitz or in whatever other camp have, year after year, been
undergoing sometimes dizzying reductions in the official historians'
estimates;

8. -- The proliferation of miracles which, after the war, made it
possible to present millions of European Jews as so many
"miraculously" saved "living witnesses of the Holocaust" and "living
proofs of the Holocaust", while these millions, who had been under the
control of the Germans and survived, are in reality living proofs that
Germany never had a policy of physical extermination of the Jews;

[Topaz]

On Fri, 06 May 2016 16:38:47 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Listenning to a video, I learned Hitler declared because the US was run by Jews
>and Blacks, it was safe to declare war because the earliest the US could attack
>Germany was 1970.
>
>You come from a long line of such intellectuals.

Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
Here are some quotes from:
Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941
In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak of war
in September 1939, explained why he decided to strike against the
Soviet Union in June 1941, reviewed the dramatic course of the war
thus far, and dealt at length with President Franklin Roosevelt's
hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler detailed the increasingly
belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government, and then dramatically
announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United
States. The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading
translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times!
Although this historic address should be of particular interest to
Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made
available in English!
-- Mark Weber

After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the
British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that
supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that
this war would have to be fought through to the end
The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for
themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A
historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the
Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.

The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion
of the conflict in Norway [in June 1940] compelled the German
leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important
political, strategic and economic areas that had been won.
From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches
the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses.
Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north
that were blasted out of granite.

I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any
enemy attack.

Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by
eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with
the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was
psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward
Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National
Socialist] Party.

I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich
and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.

The best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the
East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut
their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in
promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial
egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded
it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries
aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of
the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a
soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and
sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in
the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to
help.

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.

And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a
man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the
fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above
all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.

When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up
much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.
You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].
You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There
is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for
no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live
in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and
Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In
geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very
important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting
link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of
the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the
Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups
[notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less
severe.

During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily
hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the
German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to
enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and
we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text.
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the
German-Polish minority question:

The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any
further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have
taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution
must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so
that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only
eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same
tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the
intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of
Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the
minority populations in the lost territories.

In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by
the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the
intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation,
secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which
will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if
not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority
populations with secure guarantees of their rights.

On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete
proposals:

The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on
the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of
its population.

The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for
itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This
territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north]
to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder,
Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then
westwards to Schoenlanke.

For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory.
All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were
born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the
plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived
in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before
that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled
from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.

Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which is
regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent of
[ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is recognized
as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish port city will
be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary, established by
an international court of arbitration.

A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the territory
will go to Germany or to Poland.

If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that it
is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the
extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.

The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms
against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its
part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make
protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit
these complaints to an international investigation commission, which
will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and
physical damage as well as other acts of terror.

This is the treaty proposal - as straight-forward and as generous as
has ever been presented by a government - that was made by the
National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.

The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in
any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it
possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard
such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against
the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture,
and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces? A look at
the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later
provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man
[President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all
of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any
possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former
Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his
government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal
the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible
for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man
[Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that,
in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?
With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following
should be said:

Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a colony
in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise
politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions
of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and
particularly the United States, has only benefited.

Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between
the American and German nations that could possibly involve the
existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The
forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a
reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of
government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its
naturally ordained sphere.

History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will
always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a
pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of
national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but
among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone
made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were
torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was
ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood
behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into
a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed
this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic
ruin.

After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American
president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up
hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came
to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to
power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine
the factors behind the current developments.

First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that
there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and
attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an
extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that
class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of
advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family,
and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of
immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt
experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow
[as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the
agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I
lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or
profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an
ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the
face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as
when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with
millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called
upper ten thousand.

After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial
speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is,
from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital
along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in
business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class,
Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same
period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of
my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its
entire history.

Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the
United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the
German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I
had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the
same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my
people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that
served the new American president was made up of members of the same
national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical
expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took
control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that
was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were
13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven
million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In
both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the
spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German
Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in
making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political
theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement
in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years
under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able
to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task
should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15
people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If
economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the
result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the
complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the
economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was
eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further
disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects
appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are
members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in
disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany
took measures against financial speculation, it flourished
tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was
spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by
anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during
peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have
brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical
cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have
ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the
nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by
a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening
opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think
that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his
domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting
to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington,
which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the
danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and
that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign
policy.

The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old
Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the
instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim
[slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were
increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their
satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his influence to create
conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep
conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked
for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he
could use to create political entanglements with American economic
obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily
involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own
confused domestic economic policies.

His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been
particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches,
including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in
Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American
public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of
quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of
this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President
Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then
called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for
consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only
by charges d'affaires.

Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to
sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he
hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same
time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of
peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals,
calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the
Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a
shocking insight.

This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a
message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take
every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in
American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe
Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal
European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the
United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these
problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself
with central European affairs than the German head of state has to
take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United
States.

Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of
international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of
non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments.
He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which
then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories
[Greenland and Iceland ].

But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and
her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is
at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of
deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at
it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms
embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to
Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for
economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to
effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small
group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only
political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had
taken from Warsaw.

This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to
French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American
government would double its aid to France, on the condition that
France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special
emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the
American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by
conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories
that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now
and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about
whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border
in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the
systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about
peace while at the same time he incites to war.

And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the
billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be
recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack
America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in
order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in
reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca
on an American cruiser.

In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war,
such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air
force and the training of British air force personnel in the United
States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States
and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a
joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the
stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as
if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly
cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers,
who really deserve pity. He moved still closer to war in September
1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the
British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British
possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will
determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against
socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the
British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a
role.

After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries
he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941].
As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease
military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in
America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that
Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued
boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa]
that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger
liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had
to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an
effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27,
1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser
Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La
Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.

On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of
foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to
international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue
the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they
finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy
hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely
through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
East.

In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by
the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were
treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in
violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so
forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to
the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian
authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.

On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all
aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his
clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade
after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier,
President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very
inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an
uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.
In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and
Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants
as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international
law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. Starting in mid-April [1941]
US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic,
reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt
delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time,
British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May
12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in
the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop
transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9
came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of
President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland
with depth charges.

On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in
violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying
pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the
shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German
Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn
[national railway] office.

On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from
Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally
force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize
the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At
the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July
10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was
under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US
destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British
airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later,
a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a
British convoy.

In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last
personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all
Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols
attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On
October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the
British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on
November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and
imprisoned its crew.

I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude
statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he
calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did
not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in
America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr.
Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].

We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated
against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The
same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to
war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations.
He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while
at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war.
And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that
his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth
and violations of law are unparalleled in history.

I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance
that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this
in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should
not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941].
After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government
finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All
of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people
around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.

We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that
believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we
have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have
gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of
German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international
Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the
President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that
only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.

And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and
their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another.
The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of
the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been
trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present
leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this
historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being
determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store
for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the
past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National
Socialist Germany of today.

When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day
build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than
incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward
countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed
people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to
keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As
far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either
from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr.
Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to
insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts
conspire together to prevent it.

Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this
long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and
thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way.
At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and
seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports
returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly
informed of the following:

President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an
unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States
and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and
Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence.
For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of
America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in
the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of
the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has
steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German
and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary
deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The
increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have
reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete
violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack,
fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have
even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal
manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and
Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to
imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany
and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was
made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no
effort to deny it.

Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt,
Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the
expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United
States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27,
1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally
forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the
defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our
nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement,
which was signed today in Berlin:

Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that
has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain
with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.

Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an
armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or
Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.

Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely
together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of
bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact
concluded by them on September 27, 1940.

Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have
clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end.
We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the
Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with
Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same
community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany,
and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to
annihilate our enemies.

When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead
the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of
you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle
really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking
of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so
miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it
possible.

Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than
twenty years.

When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every
sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant
and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past
generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the
German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the
duty that is ours.

The government of the United States of America, having violated in the
most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having
continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany
ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British
declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally
resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America
publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force
to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27,
1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.
Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically
attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus,
American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the
Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan.
The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that
the American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under
order of their government and contrary to international law, have
treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy
ships.

The German government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States of America
during every period of the present war, the government of the United
States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally
proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby
virtually created a state of war.

The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic
relations with the United States of America and declares that under
these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too,
as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.

[abelard]

On Sat, 07 May 2016 03:59:45 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> The Holocaust of the Jews is a fiction.

you're an idiot...

rbu...


--
www.abelard.org

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 15:51:00 -0500) it happened Topaz
<mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in <0s0qibldrrb6h82d5...@4ax.com>:

>
>Socialism is a government doing something to help people.
>
>Capitalism is the opposition to anything a government might do to help
>people.
>
>The most annoying thing about the USA is affirmative action. This
>means that women and Black people get the jobs and scholarships even
>if the White man is more qualified.

Yes, and that poison has spreaded to Europe.

In the end the strongest will win, in a war situation what really counts will be demonstrated.
That is how evolution works.

>America is founded on the idea
>that the White man is to blame for everything bad. And every time
>women or Black people get to be president or whatever it's called a
>great achievement. This is known as political correctness or PC for
>short.

If you look at apes and other animals and the different forms of societies those animals have,
you see fascinating parallels with humans.

Different races, different ways,
Some very aggressive, some hide.
Some very fast, some very slow.

Forms of 'life'.

Ants...

We are only different in that we can make and use tools better than the others.
If you break up the human species into groups there is religion, those who assign
everything they cannot comprehend to a God, Atheists who deny there is one.
Followers and leaders in each of those groups, and religion subdivided into
God knows how many Gods.. people have created in their minds.
Jews are just a part of a part of a subgroup of life,
and it makes little sense to blame them for the Universe or whatever you are into blaming that your
idea of what the Universe should be is not what it really is.
Personally I do not believe in free will or free Willy at all :-)
All those forces of nature past present and future a cross-field in this moment, you are just a vector.
Nature ['s forces] will balance, what we humans think it does not care.

Mosquitos, those are tuff, but I killed some...

More down to earth we see globalisation, maybe we will meet alien lifeforms and need to defend ourselves.
The wars we have and the weapons that survive scrutiny in real battle may help us fight those
aliens who developed the same way by 'evolution'.
Maybe we will wind up rad-hardened after WW3.

>The problem with the schools is that they are PC.

In my view the old 'school' idea is no longer usable after some age.
I learn more from google and wikipedia and internet by following in depth what I want to know for the things I need to know
to do what I want to do than a school's pre-programming will give 9and teh teacher will be clueless on the details always).
It is easy to teach kids to salute a flag, sing for a king, or whatever,
they probably like the day or moment off, but it creates apes that do and do not know what they do.
And those are easily to manipulate later in life,
that is also how NS socialist youth was united, its the same for that 'blacks matter' and 'national socialism',
group hypnotism and mass manipulation of dummies.
Neither will lead anywhere in the long run.
And the same for religions.

[abelard]

On Sat, 07 May 2016 09:15:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Personally I do not believe in free will

who or what forced you to type that post?


--
www.abelard.org

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 May 2016 11:22:25 +0200) it happened abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <tscribhvduveptoe1...@4ax.com>:

>On Sat, 07 May 2016 09:15:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Personally I do not believe in free will
>
>who or what forced you to type that post?

The Force
(omit smily)

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 May 2016 10:49:49 +0200) it happened abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <fuarib9sb0h2c8720...@4ax.com>:

>On Sat, 07 May 2016 08:28:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 16:38:47 -0700) it happened Siri Cruise
>><chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>><chine.bleu-F5F14...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>>
>>>In article <a00qib1u14hg49t25...@4ax.com>,
>>> Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, it is -for- Black racists because the Jews hate the White race.
>>>> Blacks don't have that much money or power. Jews control the media
>>>> which amounts to having all the power.
>>>
>>>Listenning to a video, I learned Hitler declared because the US was run by Jews
>>>and Blacks, it was safe to declare war because the earliest the US could attack
>>>Germany was 1970.
>>
>>You watched the wrong video,
>>was it not US that declared war on Germany, and Japan?
>
>germany/hitler declared war on the usa in solidarity with its
> ally, japan

Yes, that is also what wikipedia says.
But it differs from what Topaz posted a year or so ago (Hitlers speech).

Given history is rewritten by the winner always, I do not believe either side a lot.
I do remember reading US got upset when their Hawai holiday was disrupted.

[abelard]

On Sat, 07 May 2016 09:30:18 GMT, Jan Panteltje

<pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sat, 07 May 2016 11:22:25 +0200) it happened abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <tscribhvduveptoe1...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 07 May 2016 09:15:01 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Personally I do not believe in free will
>>
>>who or what forced you to type that post?
>
>The Force
>(omit smily)

ok...

i'll supply the :-)


"The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.

The force that drives the water through the rocks
Drives my red blood; that dries the mouthing streams
Turns mine to wax.
And I am dumb to mouth unto my veins
How at the mountain spring the same mouth sucks....

(dylan thomas, 1937...a bit more if you wish to search for it)




--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Sat, 07 May 2016 09:34:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje

<pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sat, 07 May 2016 10:49:49 +0200) it happened abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <fuarib9sb0h2c8720...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 07 May 2016 08:28:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>><pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 16:38:47 -0700) it happened Siri Cruise
>>><chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>><chine.bleu-F5F14...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>>>
>>>>In article <a00qib1u14hg49t25...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, it is -for- Black racists because the Jews hate the White race.
>>>>> Blacks don't have that much money or power. Jews control the media
>>>>> which amounts to having all the power.
>>>>
>>>>Listenning to a video, I learned Hitler declared because the US was run by Jews
>>>>and Blacks, it was safe to declare war because the earliest the US could attack
>>>>Germany was 1970.
>>>
>>>You watched the wrong video,
>>>was it not US that declared war on Germany, and Japan?
>>
>>germany/hitler declared war on the usa in solidarity with its
>> ally, japan
>
>Yes, that is also what wikipedia says.
>But it differs from what Topaz posted a year or so ago (Hitlers speech).

well, there's an authority from the asylum for you!

>Given history is rewritten by the winner always, I do not believe either side a lot.
>I do remember reading US got upset when their Hawai holiday was disrupted.

i can quite believe it...

read william manchester, 'the last lion' if you want some heavy work!

america does not come out smelling of jasmine



--
www.abelard.org

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ngkbml$2t4$1...@news.datemas.de>,

Jan Panteltje <pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, and that poison has spreaded to Europe.

Oh, how sweet. Topaz has a friend. Aaaah.

Now don't go yandere on each other. That would be just......disappointing?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ngk907$ts4$1...@news.datemas.de>,

Jan Panteltje <pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On a sunny day (Fri, 06 May 2016 16:38:47 -0700) it happened Siri Cruise
> <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <chine.bleu-F5F14...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>:
>
> >In article <a00qib1u14hg49t25...@4ax.com>,
> > Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No, it is -for- Black racists because the Jews hate the White race.
> >> Blacks don't have that much money or power. Jews control the media
> >> which amounts to having all the power.
> >
> >Listenning to a video, I learned Hitler declared because the US was run by
> >Jews
> >and Blacks, it was safe to declare war because the earliest the US could
> >attack
> >Germany was 1970.
>
> You watched the wrong video,
> was it not US that declared war on Germany, and Japan?

Yes. After they declared war on the US. Japan issued an ultimatum which can
serve as a declaration of war and committed an act of war against the US. The US
respondeded with a counter declaration of war against Japan. Germany then
declared war the US, and the US responded with a counter declaration. Similarly
with Italy. Germany then invaded US territorial waters. It was only after
Germany and Japan attacked US territory that the US attacked their territories.

> I mean after operation 'climb mount tanaka' or something?
>
> IIRC Topas posted Hitlers full reply to that declaration of war by the US
> here?
>
> With all this history [re]writing it is hard to tell, try wikipedia?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_declaration_of_war_upon_Germany_(
> 1941)

I see Oleg has discoverred how to use sock puppets.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 May 2016 11:45:24 +0200) it happened abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <12eribpg9v63h1nj2...@4ax.com>:

I looked it up just now,
of course it is easy after facts [happened] to celebrate somebody who turned out to be right.,
and fits in the winner takes all strategy,
So I am waiting for the youtube video or movie with George Cloony playing Churchil :-)

>america does not come out smelling of jasmine

Them cowboys, its a hard life.
I could tell you via email about me in 'merrica, but even the cable connection is being monitored
over here since a few days, NSA style.
But it would prove some black posters here very very wrong.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 May 2016 11:39:56 +0200) it happened abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <1odrib93c0msvqhek...@4ax.com>:

Nice, yes,
in an Universe where stars are born and starts die, explode,
we are just a pattern formed on the surface of a ball of cooled down dirt.

Bit higher temperature and we are gone, bit lower the same.
But this little chemical reaction has SUCH A BIG EGO :-)
(That is by ME (boast boast boast) )
:-)

[abelard]

On Sat, 07 May 2016 12:05:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje

what 'winner' took all?

>So I am waiting for the youtube video or movie with George Cloony playing Churchil :-)

>>america does not come out smelling of jasmine
>
>Them cowboys, its a hard life.
>I could tell you via email about me in 'merrica, but even the cable connection is being monitored

no to email...i work here(ukpm)

>over here since a few days, NSA style.
>But it would prove some black posters here very very wrong.

--
www.abelard.org

[The Doctor]

In article <kebribpdq9vqlucc4...@4ax.com>,

Another nutbar in the group.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
A good government puts criminals in fear; a bad one, the law abiding. -unknown

[Topaz]

In the good old days a man could afford children and his wife
didn't have to work. The biggest problem in schools was gum chewing.
But it was more than that. It was the entire culture. Look in the old
movies and you can see it. Men were men. Women were women. And
everybody was White.

Look at America now. There are non-Whites everywhere. Anyone can
see Black neighborhoods and not safe and not where you want to live.
America is slowly turning into a third world country.

The National Socialists were fighting for the good old days. They
were fighting for civilization.

The Jews make the movies and control the media. Now you can hardly
go to the movies without seeing race-mixing and feminism. Hopefully
the world will not continue to go down the tubes forever. If we stop
the Jews from controlling the media and society we can be on the path
back to the good old days.

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

[Topaz]

WHEN A FOREIGN government -- a government which represents the
interests of another people -- can covertly control our government,
the results will be fatal for some of our citizens and tragic for us
all. The foreign government will use the resources of its captive
state to further the interests of the foreign people. It will not
care if it spends half or all of the treasure of its captive people
to advance its aims. The foreign government will not care if the
sonsů of the captive nation are slaughtered by the
thousands, as long as the interests of the foreign people are served.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8331 ]

That foreign government is Israel. The captive nation is the United
States of America. And here to talk about the issues surrounding
Jewish Zionist power, its trajectory in the near term, and its
implications for the long-term future is the Director of the
Institute for Historical Review, http://www.ihr.org, Mr. Mark Weber.
When we left our discussion last week, we were talking about the
Zionist attempt to hypocritically use the issue of Iran's nuclear
program as a pretext for war. Let's rejoin that discussion now.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8400 ]

WEBER: The larger problem really is this: The United States is
saying that Iran cannot develop even a peaceful nuclear program, but
the United States sanctions and even supports the development of
nuclear weapons programs in Iran's neighbors Israel, Pakistan, and
India. From the Iranian point of view, it would be foolish not to
have a nuclear program. On one side of Iran is Afghanistan, which is
occupied by the United States -- a nuclear power. Another of Iran's
neighbors is Pakistan, which has developed nuclear weapons. On the
other side of Iran is Iraq, which is occupied by the United States,
which, again, has nuclear weapons. And of course, Iran's biggest
adversary is Israel, which has a nuclear arsenal that has been
estimated at two hundred weapons.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7995 ]
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8228 ]

KAS: So do you believe that Iran is indeed aiming at developing
nuclear weapons?

WEBER: My guess is no better than anyone else's; I don't have any
special insight. All Iran is asking for is the right to develop a
peaceful nuclear energy program, which is their right under
international law and under the treaties that they've signed.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8452 ]

KAS: It seemed very hypocritical to me to see George Bush condemning
Iran for its nuclear development efforts just after returning from
what I would describe as a love-fest with India and Pakistan, both
nuclear powers in the region.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7825 ]

WEBER: I would agree. After India and Pakistan first detonated
nuclear weapons, the United States imposed an embargo and sanctions
on those two countries for a while. That's all been forgotten now,
which is another reason why leaders around the world think that the
lesson to be drawn from the United States' actions is that once you
actually get the weapons, the United States will back down and shut
up. That's the pattern that our government has shown over the years.
Once a country actually has nuclear weapons, the United States seems
to accept it, even in countries it wishes it didn't have such
weapons, such as Pakistan and China.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=7543 ]

KAS: What are our chances for averting a wider war in the Middle East?

WEBER: When a patient has an illness, it's important that the doctor
correctly diagnose the problem. In our society it's important that
as many Americans as possible correctly diagnose the problem that we
have. The root cause of these wars is the Jewish and Zionist grip on
our policy.

Recently a major new study was released by an important think tank
that underscored once again the fact that American Middle East
policy is firmly in the grip of what they call the Israel lobby, but
which would more accurately be called the Jewish-Zionist lobby.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8362 ]

As long as our foreign policy and our political life are in this
Jewish-Zionist grip, wars and conflict of this sort will continue,
because it's in the interests of this lobby -- and in the interests
of Israel -- to foment such conflicts in that part of the world.
This is against the interests of not only our people, but of the
entire rest of the world, except for Israel. That's why around the
world there was universal opposition to the war against Iraq. Some
governments went along with it, but the only country where the
population supported the war was Israel, and a war against Iran
would have no popular support except in Israel.

As long as this Jewish-Zionist grip on our foreign policy remains,
we're not going to avoid these kinds of wars and conflicts. So
addressing that problem and increasing public awareness about it is
absolutely a task of the first order. Until that's done, we're just
going to continue to have these tremendous problems.

KAS: Can you tell us the name of the think tank that issued the
report on Jewish power?
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8460 ]

WEBER: The John F. Kennedy School of Government. The report was
issued by two professors, one at the University of Chicago and one
at Harvard University. A summary of it appears in the London Review
of Books, and we'll have it posted on our Web site. It's entitled
The Israel Lobby, and it starts out by saying:

"For the past several decades and especially since the Six-Day War
in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel." It goes on to say, "ůthe thrust of U.S.
policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics,
and especially the activities of the 'Israel lobby.' Other special
interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy, but no
lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national
interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans
that U.S. interests and those of the other country -- in this case,
Israel -- are essentially identical."

This paper underscores and emphasizes points that we've made over
and over again, and that the world understands. A summary of the
report reads as follows:

"The centerpiece of U.S. policy is the intimate relationship with
Israel. Though often justified as reflecting shared strategic
interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to
Israel is due primarily to the activities of the Israel lobby. This
paper describes the various activities that pro-Israel groups have
undertaken in order to shift U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel
direction."

A summary of this very enlightening report also appears in the
latest issue of the London Review of Books. Now the sad fact and the
sad reality is that our political leaders know this, of course, but
it's precisely because of the power of this Israel lobby that they
just do not speak out. This can't be emphasized enough. Right after
the invasion of Iraq Senator Hollings of South Carolina stated
publicly and repeatedly that everyone in Washington in any position
to know what's going on understands that the Iraq war was carried
out first and foremost to secure Israeli interests, but Congress is
too cowardly and too corrupt to publicly acknowledge the factů
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8495 ]
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8496 ]

[Topaz]

Rudolph Vrba was a well-known survivor of Auschwitz,
who claimed to have seen gassings of people. But in the 1985
trial in Toronto, for the first time he was questioned very
closely under oath, by Doug Christie, Ernst Zundel's attorney,
with advice and with help from Robert Faurisson, the French
revisionist scholar. And Rudolph Vrba collapsed, basically. He
admitted that many of the claims that he had been making, in a
bestselling book about his experiences, were false. And he
resorted, finally, to saying, well, it's "poetic license," it's
an exaggeration - basically, it's a lie.

Another witness, Raul Hilberg, who is the author of a well-known
standard work on the "holocaust" question, was also forced to
concede things, too, that were very astonishing. And these were
reported in the newspapers very widely at the time. Now the
second trial did not receive the same media coverage in Canada,
but it did still receive some. And in the second trial, Fred
Leuchter was one of the most outstanding witnesses. Even David
Irving testified in that trial. I testified for five days in the
trial.

The Canadian Jewish groups, and the American Jewish groups, were
furious at the result, and have done everything in their power to
silence this man.

[Topaz]

By Patrick Grimm

Jewish power is a subject I often talk about in my writings. In some
of my more long-winded pieces I have referred to that power as
something almost akin to "omnipotence" or "omnipresence." One recent
poster even says that the fact that Jews are criticized across the
internet and that the criticizers are allowed to continue with the
criticizing without being purged or molested, proves that Jews are not
all-powerful. Point taken, but point irrelevant as well.
But neither I nor anyone else have ever claimed that their power is
'complete' and 'total' in the truest sense of those words, though it
is obscenely disproportionate to their tiny numbers. But what I want
you to think about is this: There are 18 million Jews upon this
planet, yet they control almost all of the world's media (even
reportedly having bought a 50% share of Al Jazeera, oh the irony!),
create and manipulate most of the world's money supply, own every
major publishing company in America and most of the publishing houses
in Europe, have passed laws in every European country and in Canada
outlawing speech that criticizes them and now have the world's
superpower fighting for them in Iraq and poised to kill for them in
Iran. Yet some anonymous poster somewhere wants to quibble over the
reality that modestly-frequented blogs say derogatory things about
Jewish power. So what? Who is listening, for the most part, except the
choir in the first place? Yet there is no harm in helping the choir to
harmonize better and sing in key, is there?
What is also ignored is the fact that in our nation's controlled
schoolhouses and libraries, there are ADL-mandated filters placed on
most of the computers, blocking out, not hard-core and child
pornography (the ADL and the ACL-Jew both assure us that this type of
filtering would be unconstitutional) but any website or forum
criticizing Jews, questioning the official "Holocaust story" of six
million, bringing up uncomfortable realities about Jewish crime and
misbehavior historically, and in general anything that digs into the
stark facts of complete Zionist manipulation of our government and its
institutions. Young children, even elementary school children should
be able to feast their eyes on any type of perversion, no matter how
twisted, but God help them if they were to learn the truth about those
supremacist Jews who have waged thousands of years of war against
every civilization that has ever had the misfortune to open their arms
and their doors to them. The pattern is so consistent, and history
tells its bloody story.
But because dissenting voices are allowed to dissent, and
uncomfortable truths are allowed to be told, albeit in a confined
environment with nowhere near the audience of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or
the Fox Neocon Channel, the Jews are supposedly quaking in their
boots. I don't buy it and neither should you. In fact, they are doing
damage control as we speak, damage control that should easily dam up
any "troublesome" thoughts that might otherwise leak into the mental
stream of the American collective sewer.
Just the other night after turning on the TV for probably the first
time in a week, I noticed on my television's guide, all in a 7:00 time
frame, a special on the World Trade Center spinning out the phony 9/11
Arab hijacker story, a program on the History Channel chronicling the
heroic uprising of a brave cadre of Jewish prisoners at a German Nazi
concentration camp, and then another informatively slanted
presentation on a military station that portrayed brave little Israel
fighting for her very survival, keeping herself from being "pushed
into the sea" by evil Arabs who were full of unexplainable hatred of
Jews whom they simply enjoyed killing for fun. Then, over on the
Judeo-Christian network there was a Jewish rabbi tearfully and
whiningly begging in a Jewish effeminate nasal for generous donations
from conservative Christians for the poor and starving children living
in Israeli slums. What an absolute joke! Perhaps the rabbi didn't have
the Rothschilds on speed dial.
These are the kinds of propaganda pieces that awash the American mind
with lies, half-truths and distorted white noise. Yet the Jews need to
worry about shutting Patrick Grimm and Jayne Gardener up? Millions of
people sit like nodding zombies and soak in the bilge that is Jewish
"entertainment" while my blog will finally hit 6,000 page views
sometime this week. Who are you trying to kid?
Why give the average American flag-waving ingester of Judeo-agitprop a
blatant photograph of what totalitarianism looks like by conducting
internet pogroms of all political and ideological dissent? Yes, why
indeed? I mean, the typical American is comfortable in his ignorance,
and after all, he is working harder and harder to make the Jewish
banking regime richer and richer and fatter and fatter. The Mammonites
are getting more Mammonized, after all. Why clue in Joe Six Pack that
his country is owned by an alien with alien allegiances, and literally
no allegiances to the values he holds dear, old-fashioned ideals like
working for a living and not cheating his fellow man out of his
paycheck just because he can get away with it and it might help the
"Tribe"?
To the Jewish behemoth athwart this country's back and sucking the
blood from it like a leech on a bender, people like myself, Ms.
Gardener, Curtis Maynard, Mark Glenn, The West and others are simply
nuisances to be ignored, and if necessary, stigmatized so that the
brain-washed will obediently jettison all our "anti-Semitic" warnings
about Jewish monopolies and Zionist treason. No, our little band of
political dissidents don't present a big enough threat to the Jews
robbing this country, at least not yet. Whether the status quo changes
or not still remains to be seen.

[Topaz]

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html

Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique

Reviewed by Stanley Hornbeck

In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements -- largely established and led by Jews
-- have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed
the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally thought to be more sinned against than sinning.

The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald's
massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two
previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation
and its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series
is written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a
unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic
groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of
California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first
volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of
uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from
other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile
relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the
almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile
societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of
Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account
of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.

The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume
are Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of
sociology, and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a
racial perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting
multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis
Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these
movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often
tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of
their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald's most profound charge against
Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty -- that while claiming to be
working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own
good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the
brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of
gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group
solidarity they decry as immoral in others.

Celebrating Diversity
Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which
Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and
diversity -- but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they
have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations
of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis
for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same
time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of
Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in
gentile society.

Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group
loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a
society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The
Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their
survival as a people for thousands for years -- even without a country
-- has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in
nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald's
view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the
identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can
flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman:
"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their
belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a
society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well
as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for
example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming
majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a
liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the
diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal
of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They
are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept.
Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews
may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for
the country but because it is good for the Jews.

Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish
economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic
policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate
anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the
faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the
Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles
and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies
were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good
for the country.

Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University
makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing
his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next
century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped
beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in
this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and
culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise
of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as
potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and
national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews.
This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews
as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and
influence.

In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "[w]e [Jews]
have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for
about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the
heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it
irreversible..." -- just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement
of European culture also irreversible.

Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to
several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish
immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established
the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological
explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof.
MacDonald reports that he and his followers -- with the notable
exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict -- were all Jews with
strong Jewish identities: "Jewish identification and the pursuit of
perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of
cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the
'invisible subject' of American anthropology."

By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological
Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university
anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted
the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that
environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology
so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration,
integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the
idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of
non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The
ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment
accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement
can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the
justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention
programs.

The entire "civil rights" movement can be seen as a natural
consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were
equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened
white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of
Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that
Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement.
Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been
established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew.
Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus
Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he
stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.

Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the
"civil rights" transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the
American Jewish Congress who claims that "many of these [civil rights]
laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish
staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into
being by Jewish voters."

While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial
equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald's words,
"American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and
aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality).
Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic
[Third-World] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived
traits that were attributed to Western culture."

The Role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything
about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof.
MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples
deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to
contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to
undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them
permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is
enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration
because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.

Authoritarian Personalities
In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that
would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity
and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the
basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt
School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was
founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish
millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took
power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the
institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was
headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W.
Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong
Jewish identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of
the institute's activities: "Research would be able here to transform
itself directly into propaganda," he wrote. (Italics in the original)

Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian
Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was
part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the
Frankfurt school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and
Emotional Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality, which was
particularly influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the
American Jewish Committee heavily funded its promotion and because
Jewish academics took up its message so enthusiastically.

The book's purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it
were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion
to family -- and race -- loyalty are sign of a dangerous and defective
"authoritarian personality." Because drawing distinctions between
different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties -- even close
family ties! -- are "prejudice." As Christopher Lasch has written, the
book leads to the conclusion that prejudice "could be eradicated only
by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective
psychotherapy -- by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum."

But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group
loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences
central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as
mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually
became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose
political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof.
MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even
described Jewish group identity -- only that of gentiles: "behavior
that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary
strategy is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles."

For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of
mental illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and
especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt
school was enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which
"Oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in
early childhood are the anti-Semite's irrevocable inheritance."

In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the
Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof.
MacDonald sees the school as a seminal influence: "Certainly many of
the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural
revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including
idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual
relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status,
family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism."

Of the interest here, however, is the movement's success in branding
ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he
came later, the French-Jewish "deconstructionist" Jacques Derrida was
in the same tradition when he wrote:

"The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of
strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to
deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the
metaphysics of native land and native tongue... The idea is to disarm
the bombs... of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves
against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants... "

As Prof. MacDonald puts it, "Viewed at its most abstract level, a
fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples
of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and
cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of
psychopathology." Needless to say, this project has been successful;
anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a
mentally unhinged "hate-monger," and whenever whites defend their
group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The
irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: "The ideology that
ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group
that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric
group among all the cultures of the world."

Immigration
Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote
open immigration. It brings about the "diversity" Jews find comforting
and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the
world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass
immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic
efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews
have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover,
whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of
every political persuasion have favored high immigration.

This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in
considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort.
Israel Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot,
was of the view that "there is only one way to World Peace, and that
is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom
houses... " He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of
Jewish intermarriage.

Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening
the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to
American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus
helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of
the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes
to America "huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse
of your teeming shore."

Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about
diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by
Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish
Committee was urging Congress to believe that "Americanism is the
spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to
people of all races, all religions, all nationalities." Of course,
there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish
Congress argued in hearings on immigration that "our national
experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in
the diversity of our peoples." This, too, was at a time when U.S.
immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white
majority.

It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in
1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law
would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald
disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish
groups from the beginning.

Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of
immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups
were the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian
Jews led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one
reason for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish
Democrat: "The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is
also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The
day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel
more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like
Earl Raab writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is
prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of
Australia to specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising
if such an openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect
from the intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentiment.

Jews and the Left
It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the
left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail.
Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements
that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation,
Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose
ground to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries.
However, in Prof. MacDonald's view, Jewish commitment to leftist
causes has often been motivated by the hope that communism,
especially, would be a tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by
expectation that universalist social solutions would be yet another
way to dissolve gentile loyalties that might exclude Jews. The appeal
of univeralist ideologies is tied to the implicit understanding that
Jewish particularism will be exempt:

"At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles
would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social
category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a
strong personal identity as Jews."

Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for
supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for
its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet
Union seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state
anti-Semitism, tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities
to individual Jews, and preached a "classless" society in which
Jewishness would presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover,
since Marxism taught that all conflict was economic rather than
ethnic, many Jews believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.

Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached
both atheism and the solidarity of the world's working people, they
took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports
that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the
continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in
1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also
supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although
Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were
confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He
writes that despite the official view that all men were to be
brothers, "very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire
soviet era."

Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof.
MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: "The
Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and
human community in history... The disappearance of the Jewish people
would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man
into a wild beast." This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position
incompatible with "unity and human community."

Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from
Communism only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And
just as Jews had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic
pre-Revolutionary Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an
anti-Semitic Soviet Union. A similar pattern can be found in the
imposed Communist governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely
dominated by Jews. The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist
Party, for example, spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too
maintained a strong Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many
stopped being Polish and emigrated to Israel.

Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun's short-lived 1919 Communist
government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that
at the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated
with Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He
argues that in the United States as well, the hard core among
Communists and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was
mainly Jewish. Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist
world-view was fully compatible with strong identification as Jews.
Prof. MacDonald quotes from a study of American leftists:

"Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have
married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they
could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the
question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many
concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for
granted." Their commitment as Jews was even more fundamental and
unexamined than their commitment to the left.

Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned
Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number,
the Soviet Union's severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the
1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for
many when he explained, "If I must choose between the Jewish cause and
a 'progressive' anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If
barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew." According to Prof.
MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface
shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment
to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an
ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American
conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of
which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high
levels of immigration and were active in excluding white racial
identification from the "respectable" right.

Objections
There are many possible objections to Prof. MacDonald's thesis. The
first is that it is largely built on the assumption that Jews are
dishonest. It is always risky to assume one understands the motives of
others better than they do themselves. Jews have traditionally thought
of themselves as a benevolent presence, even as a "light unto the
nations" or a "chosen people." This is echoed today in the Jewish self
image as champions of the excluded and the oppressed. Most of the time
what passes for "social justice" has the effect of undermining the
traditions and loyalties of gentile society, but are Jews deliberately
undermining these things rather than righting what they perceive to be
wrongs?

Prof. MacDonald concedes that many Jews are sincere in their support
for liberal causes, but then escalates his indictment by arguing that
"the best deceivers are those who deceive themselves." In other words,
many Jews who are actually working for Jewish interests have first
convinced themselves otherwise. A Jew who mainly wants America to
become less white may also have convinced himself that America
benefits from a multitude of cultures. Having convinced himself he can
more effectively convince others.

Many Jews, Prof. MacDonald argues, are not even conscious of the
extent to which their Jewishness is central to their identities or
their political views. He quotes Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel on his
surprise at how passionately he embraced the Israeli side during the
1967 war:

"I had not known how Jewish I was." This is an arresting statement
from a man who was thought to be perhaps the greatest Jewish spiritual
leader of his time. And whether or not it affects their politics, Jews
certainly appear to have a very vivid sense of peoplehood. Prof.
MacDonald quotes theologian Eugene Borowitz as saying,"most Jews claim
to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that
enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy
camouflage." Always to think in terms of "friends or foe" is no
insignificant matter.

Prof. MacDonald is therefore skeptical of Jewish disavowals: "Surface
declarations of a lack of Jewish identity may be highly misleading."
He notes that Jewish publications write about the power and influence
of American Jews in language Jews would immediately denounce as
"anti-Semitic" if used by gentiles. He agrees with Joseph Sobran, who
has said "they want to be Jews among themselves but resent being seen
as Jews by Gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests
while pretending that they have no such interests ... "

Prof. MacDonald argues that the success of Jewish-led intellectual
movements has been possible only because their Jewish character was
hidden. If multi-culturalism or mass immigration or The Authoritarian
Personality had been promoted by Orthodox Jews in black coats the
Jewish element would have been clear. Prof. MacDonald writes that in
fact, "the Jewish political agenda was not an aspect of the theory and
the theories themselves had no overt Jewish content. Gentile
intellectuals approaching these theories were therefore unlikely to
view them as aspects of Jewish-gentile cultural competition or as an
aspect of a specifically Jewish political agenda." Prof. MacDonald
also claims that Jews have often tried to conceal the Jewish character
of an intellectual movement by recruiting token gentiles for visible
positions as spokesmen. He writes that this tactic was so common in
the American Communist Party that gentiles often saw through it and
resigned.

But how can motives ever be completely known? Prof. MacDonald sets a
difficult test: "The best evidence that individuals have really ceased
to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that
they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In
the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it
remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews
are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish
interests."

This standard may seem unduly harsh -- until it is applied to white
gentiles. Third-World immigration, affirmative action,
anti-discrimination laws, and forced integration are clearly not in
the interests of whites, yet many whites embrace them, thus
demonstrating how completely they have abandoned their racial
identity.

Finally, Prof. MacDonald raises the disturbing possibility that some
Jews, because of centuries of conflict with gentiles, actively hate
gentile society and consciously wish to destroy it: "a fundamental
motivation of Jewish intellectuals involved in social criticism has
simply been hatred of the gentile-dominated power structure perceived
as anti-Semitic." He describes the 19th century German-Jewish poet
Heinrich Heine as "using his skill, reputation and popularity to
undermine the intellectual confidence of the established order."

In defense of this highly provocative view, Prof. MacDonald quotes
Benjamin Disraeli on the effects of centuries of Jewish-gentile
relations on Jews: "They may have become so odious and so hostile to
mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how
occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which
they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle."

Apart from any questions of motives, however, is the question of
numbers. Jews are a tiny minority in the United States and within that
minority there is disagreement even on matters that clearly affect
Jews. How can Jews possibly be responsible for dramatic changes in the
intellectual landscape? In Prof. MacDonald's view, the explanation
lies in the intelligence, energy, dedication, and cohesiveness of
Jews. He attributes a great deal to the average IQ of Jews -- at 115,
a full standard deviation above the white gentile average -- and to
"their hard work and dedication, their desire to make a mark on the
world, and their desire to rise in the world, engage in personal
promotion, and achieve public acclaim... " He also believes Jews have
worked together unfailingly on any question they consider necessary
for survival:

"Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive
groups outcompete individual strategies." He notes that there has
never been a time when large numbers of white Americans favored
non-white immigration; it was a cohesive, determined minority that
beat down the disorganized resistance of the majority.

Prof. MacDonald believes that because of the effectiveness of some
Jews, it was not even necessary that most Jews actively support
anti-majoritarian movements, but that Jewish activity was still
decisive. As he puts it, "Jewish-dominated intellectual movements were
a critical factor (necessary condition) for the triumph of the
intellectual left in late twentieth-century Western societies." This,
of course, can never be tested, but there can be no doubt that
American Jews have had a disproportionate effect on the American
intellect. Prof. MacDonald quotes Walter Kerr, writing in 1968, to the
effect that "what has happened since World War II is that the American
sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is
anything else... The literate American mind has come in some measure
to think Jewishly."

Aside from the question of whether Prof. MacDonald is right is the
further question of what difference it makes if he is right. If
correct, his thesis certainly sheds light on the rapidity with which
whites lost their will. Just a few decades ago whites were a confident
race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to
dominate the globe. Today they are a declining, apologetic people,
ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands
they have occupied for centuries. It is very rare for fundamental
concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation
or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests
there has been something more than natural change.

>Personally I do not believe in free will or free Willy at all :-)
>All those forces of nature past present and future a cross-field in this moment, you are just a vector.
>Nature ['s forces] will balance, what we humans think it does not care.

It mattered what people thought in Germany in 1933. I don't see why
you don't believe in free will.

>
>Mosquitos, those are tuff, but I killed some...
>
>More down to earth we see globalisation, maybe we will meet alien lifeforms and need to defend ourselves.
>The wars we have and the weapons that survive scrutiny in real battle may help us fight those
>aliens who developed the same way by 'evolution'.
>Maybe we will wind up rad-hardened after WW3.

>

>In my view the old 'school' idea is no longer usable after some age.
>I learn more from google and wikipedia and internet by following in depth what I want to know for the things I need to know
>to do what I want to do than a school's pre-programming will give 9and teh teacher will be clueless on the details always).
>It is easy to teach kids to salute a flag, sing for a king, or whatever,
>they probably like the day or moment off, but it creates apes that do and do not know what they do.
>And those are easily to manipulate later in life,
>that is also how NS socialist youth was united,

Here are some quotes from "Faith and Action." The author was in charge
of education for the Hitler Youth:

You carry in your blood the holy inheritance of your fathers and
forefathers. You do not know those who have vanished in endless ranks
into the darkness of the past. But they all live in you and walk in
your blood upon the earth that consumed them in battle and toil and in
which their bodies have long decayed. Your blood is therefore
something holy. In it your parents gave you not only a body, but your
nature. To deny your blood is to deny yourself. No one can change it.
But each decides to grow the good that one has inherited and suppress
the bad. Each is also given will and courage. You do not have only the
right, but also the duty to pass your blood on to your children, for
you are a member of the chain of generations that reaches from the
past into eternity, and this link of the chain that you represent must
do its part so that the chain is never broken. But if your blood has
traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state,
then you have the heroic duty to be the last. The blood is the carrier
of life. You carry in it the secret of creation itself. Your blood is
holy, for in it God's will lives.

Race means to be able to think in a certain way. He who has courage,
loyalty and honor, the mark of the German, has the race that should
rule in Germany, even if he does not have the physical characteristics
of the "Nordic" race. The unity of the noble and a noble body is the
goal to which we strive. But we despise those whose noble body carries
an ignoble soul. A variety of related European races have merged in
Germany. One trunk grew from these roots. Each race gave its best
strength. Each contributed to the German soul We Germans have a
fighting spirit, a look to the horizon, the "desire to do a thing for
its own sake" of the Nordic race. Another racial soul gave us our cozy
old cities and our depth. Yet another racial soul gave us mastery of
the magical realm of music. Yet another gave us our ability to
organize, and our silent obedience. We can not hold it against anyone
if he carries a variety of racial lines, for the German soul does as
well, and created out of it the immeasurable riches which it possesses
above all other nations. The greatness of our Reich grew out of this
soul. But the Nordic race must dominate in Germany and shape the soul
of each German. It must win out in the breast of each individual.
Today our ideal is not the artist or the citizen, but the hero. Our
highest treasure is the soul that we have been given. He who mixes his
blood with that of foreign inferior races ruins the blood and soul
that have been given to him to pass on in purity to his children. He
makes his children impure and miserable, and commits the greatest
crime that he as a National Socialist can commit. But he who follows
the laws of race fulfills the great commandment that only like should
be brought together with like, keeping apart those things like fire
and water which do not mix.

A people grows from god's will. Woe to him who wishes to destroy the
peoples and make people alike. God created the trees, the bushes, the
weeds and the grass not so that they could merge into one species, but
that each should exist in its own way. Just as a tree, a people grows
as a living whole from similar roots, but becoming one, the strongest
of its kind. All of the same blood belong to it. A people knows no
state boundaries. It is bound by the ties of blood that bind all the
sons of a single mother. The German people is a nation of a hundred
million. Each German belongs to it, no matter where he may live. A
people cannot be destroyed as long as its roots draw on the strength
of the earth. Summer and winter may come and go. But it always blooms
anew in indestructible life and perfects itself in the strength that
rises from its roots towards god's will. What does it mean when an
individual dies? It is as if the wind blows leaves from a tree. New
ones grow eternally every spring. The peoples are the greatest and
most noble creation of god on this earth. There is no institution in
the world, no party and no church, that has the right to make them the
same or to rob them of even the tiniest bit of their individuality.

Socialism means: "The common good before the individual good."
Socialism means: "Think not of yourself, but of the whole, of the
people and the state."
Socialism means: "Not the same for everyone, but to each his own."
These sentences make clear what we call "German socialism." No one is
a socialist who does not live according to them. A new order grows
from these sentences. The sentence "To each his own" has killed the
"mass," the slogan of Marxism, and replaced it with the "community."
Every community grows around a leader. He is the center of its order,
which forms around him. A number of these leaders form a larger
community, and stand around their leader as a living order. It all
grows from below-the number growing ever smaller-like a pyramid, and
finds its epitome in the Führer of the Reich. All are bound by the
community. Each community is a living order. The whole, the great
living order, is the people's community. It binds inextricably person
to person, leader to leader. It does not give the same to everyone,
but to each his own. It creates the socialist people in a socialist
state. Each has his task in the community, given to him according to
his gifts. Never do all have the same task, rather each his own. His
task gives him a place in the community, If he fulfills it completely,
he wins the esteem of the others. He is happy, even if his task is not
large in the overall scheme of things. Such communities grow in the
field, in assault troops, in artillery battalions, in submarines, in
S.A. units. Strong, bound forever together, wordlessly understanding
each other, together until the end, sworn to a common goal. Strength
grows from such communities, and from them grows the state. We want
community in Germany so that we can stand unshaken in the face of
whatever may come. The mass is conquered by the community. It gives to
each his own, to each his goal and his task, and everyone together one
goal: the people's community in the new state..

Courage is the most beautiful and noble trait a man can have. He who
has no courage is not a man. The "storming courage" of an attack is
wonderful. The feeling of having risked all in service of a high ideal
frees one and lets him charge forward with joy. Courage bears a man as
if he had wings, and fills his heart. The attack becomes the high
point of life. When everything depends on one card, when one can lose
everything, when one can win everything, life is at its best. He who
has never charged and attacked, filled with courage, has never fully
lived. Alongside "stormy courage" is the "indomitable courage" of
those facing hard fate. "Fate is great and powerful, but greater still
is the person who bears it unshaken." Life is often harder than death.
A coward holds on to it. No one faces a challenge greater than the
strength he has been given to face it. Courage overcomes all. When one
has done all in his power, good luck comes to show him a new way and
help him along. But it is not really good luck. "Resist all powers,
never give in, be strong, calls the army of the gods." Courage is
needed not only by the man, by the soldier, a woman too needs courage.
For the man battle, the attack is the greatest challenge. For the
woman it comes when she gives a new person life. Men who no longer
want to wage war cannot face the mothers who give new life at the risk
of their own. Courage is the noblest trait of a man or woman. It
determines the battle and gives victory.

Life demands hardness. One must strive with burning heart toward the
ideal of hardness. To be hard for the sake of life, to become a
fighter, to win the victory. Our environment is a given. Burning heat
in summer, biting cold in winter, long marches in the wet and cold.
Working long at the factory, or behind a machine gun. Bearing hunger
and thirst, sleeping on the bare earth, not surrendering in battle,
never, never, no matter how hopeless everything seems, hurling an
empty pistol in the face of the enemy, reaching for his neck without
regard for oneself, even if it leads to death. To be a fighter, a
fighter with faith in his cause, even if everyone says it is a false
cause. That brings victory, the victory that belongs to him who is the
harder. You should never give up in battle or work. Even if you fail a
thousand times, you must make the thousand and first attempt. In the
end it will succeed and you will be the victor, even if almost bled
dry, almost faint, but filled with the triumphant knowledge of having
overcome. You are victor in your struggle and victor over yourself.
Each must prepare for his battle. Each must train as if he will one
day fight the decisive battle for Germany. Each must be able to march,
suffer hunger and thirst, sleep on bare ground, bear all privations,
be a fighter, a soldier from the moment he can understand what is at
stake. We need men hard and tough as steel, harder than anything else
in the world. Only they will master the great future of Germany. Do
you want to be one of them, or stand aside as a weakling? Germany will
be the land of the brave and the strong. Either you belong to them, or
you will no longer be a German.

Will is the force inside you that commands. You may hesitate from
weariness, anxiety, weakness. Will lifts you over every barrier and
orders you to do what your feelings and understanding tell you to do.
A man without will is like a machine without power. It is useless. But
"where there is a will, there is a way," and where a will orders, it
is obeyed, whether a person follows his own will or men follow the
will of a leader. Where there is faith that comes from strength, it is
will that gives it the push. Exercise your will so that it is as taut
and ready as a drawn bowstring, ready to let loose in the moment it
should, neither a second too late nor a second too early. Exercise
your will in little things until it is strong enough to bring from you
that which Germany expects.

One expects that a person who drives a car is in control, and that he
causes no accidents. One expects that a person who lives with other
people will control himself, so that he does not endanger himself or
others. The forces within us can raise or lower us. It depends on the
use we make of them, on whether we control them and therefore
ourselves. Hunger and thirst exist to be satisfied. But woe to him who
eats for the sake of eating or drinks for the sake of drinking. He is
lower than an animal that knows when it has had enough. But he to whom
understanding has been given does not know it. We hate the gluttons
and drunkards with bulging bodies and swollen eyes, people with no
character or self control. We eat and drink to live, but we never live
in order to eat and drink. The body must be kept under iron discipline
so that we are always in charge of it and it is always dependable. We
also may never allow the sexual drive to control us. For adults it is
not there to be satisfied, rather a force that should be used to
produce future generations healthy in both body and soul. A young
person is given strength not to use in bed, rather in the sun and the
wind, on the sports field and countryside, until we have a body in
front of us full of strength and speed, a body in which courage and
faith are joined in a free soul, a body that is master of its
passions, master of itself, the German person of the future. Out of it
will grow the strength of a renewed people, the bearer of a future
generation of nobility and freedom. If you control yourself, you
control life. If you control yourself, you must be able to bear pain
without uttering a sound. Men do not complain or cry, and boys who
want to become men behave in the same way. You should not give in to
every little problem. Be open, be determined, never play the cripple,
but control yourself. Be the master of your pain and problems. Force
yourself to be cheerfully faithful. Then you will find strength you
did not know you had. You must practice self control. How often does
duty call, but something distracts you? Command yourself so that you
can master yourself. Do something every day that you do not like to
do, and avoid doing something every day that you would gladly have
done. Do everything you are ordered to do immediately, without
thinking about it. You must in order to become a real man. That is the
secret of every great personality. It has gained all the strength it
directs outwardly from overcoming itself. But you should not be a meek
person who gives up everything in order to live in a cave to receive a
promised blessing. God does not want that for a person. He should have
pleasure in his work. He should use it, but never misuse it, and
should be the master of himself.

Savages and half-savages have courage, but only advanced people have
discipline. Discipline is the ability to fall in line. Discipline is
carrying out an order without knowing the reason, without
understanding. Discipline also means enduring injustice for the sake
of a good cause. Discipline is iron virtue and silent obedience.
Discipline comes from within yourself. You accept it because you
follow a higher will. He who does not do this will be forced by steely
necessity, which alone can overcome the lack of will and weakness of
many, making of them useful members of the people and the state.
Discipline is a spiritual attitude. Law and command work through it
for the good of all. Any weakening of discipline is the beginning of
collapse. Each is called to ensure that he himself and the man next to
him behaves in a disciplined way...

You live by honor, not by bread. Slaves believe that they only need
food and drink to live. The free man knows that he needs honor first
of all. Your honor is your standing with your comrades and fellow
citizens. It is just as much your standing with yourself. To be
honorable is to be courageous. To be honorable is to be selfless and
loyal. To be honorable is to be in control of oneself. He who does
great things for his fatherland is honorable. Honor comes not from
money and possessions. But he who creates new values or gives other
work through his spirit or the work of his hands can thereby win
honor. It is also honorable to be the son of someone noble, someone
who has done much for his people and his state. But the son is
unworthy of his honor if he does not win it anew. Inherited honor does
not last forever, but always demands work and struggle. Honor is like
a crown. He who ceases to live and act like a king loses it - and has
lost it, even if he still wears it on his head. Not everyone can take
honor from another. The insult of a boy cannot harm one's honor. But
he who accepts an insult in a cowardly way loses honor before others.
We do not reply to an insult ourselves at first. That is why superior
leaders and judges are there. But if someone hits you, hit back, and
if someone strikes your face, strike him back. For we National
Socialists in Germany today, there is only one honor, one concept of
honor. Thee is no particular concept of honor for particular classes
any longer. National Socialism has given us all a new common sense of
honor. We know it. He who does not have it is not free, but a slave.
The least important worker today can be free and honorable, the
prosperous businessman a slave and a serf. That is the new law, which
gives honor only to the brave, the selfless, the loyal, the self
controlled, those who do everything for Germany that they can. The way
to honor is open for every German...

We show loyalty in daily life as well. Once again, a man's word is
dependable. Promises must be kept and will be kept. We do not need a
handshake and an oath. Each can depend on our word, because we again
have become loyal. Germany is the land of loyalty. It dwells in its
vast forests. It dwells in its knights and soldiers. It dwells again
in us. Loyalty is our honor. Who wants to be dishonorable amidst the
brave and the heroes?...

No one can do anything without faith. No one can even jump over a
ditch if he does not believe he can do it. The highest and most
important in a person is not knowledge and understanding, rather his
faith. Each is worth only as much as the faith he has. This new Reich
began with faith. The first party rally after the seizure of power was
called "The Victory of Faith." It grew and became great through faith.
It no longer grew from the faith of one man, but from the faith of us
all, and was borne by the strength of all. More than human strength
was present. Woe to those who do not believe. They are not on the side
of the strength of creation, rather annihilation. They are the
destroyers of the Reich. Faith is however stronger than all other
powers that can be found in this world.

We do not believe in a blind fate that leads people through their
lives. We do not believe that god's angels protect us in every step
that we take and keep us from falling. But we do believe in a godly
will that gives meaning to each each life that is born. Not an
arbitrary generally meaning, rather each life has its own particular
purpose and meaning. In the depths of our souls we sense whether we
act according to this meaning. One can call this conscience or
something else. It is there. We probably know the right path. We need
only ask. A voice within us gives the answer, and speaks of the godly
will that shows us the path we should go. This path is our fate. Each
has but one proper path. To follow it makes one happy to the highest
degree, even if it is a path that brings only poverty and toil. Any
path that leads away from the meaning and purpose of life is death and
sin. And even if the path seems ever so pleasant, you will sin every
day of your life. But you have the freedom to decide which path you
want to follow. No blind fate rules you. You go your own way. If you
follow the law in your own heart, it is the way to your god. It is the
way that comes from eternity and goes to eternity; in all the world
there is never an end, only transformation. There is no death that is
not also a beginning. Everything is part of the enormous plan of the
worlds, of which you are a part if you seek your path...

You should never do anything for pay, rather always because it is
worth it for its own sake. Did ever a German soldier go to war for the
sake of money? He did it for the Fatherland. He who asks us to be good
and pious for money seduces us and draws us away from god. He is the
devil's advocate, even if he promises us heaven. God is in the good
that we do, but he is not in a heaven that we will enjoy for eternity.
It is German to do something for its own sake. Such was always the
first and highest service to god in Germany, and thus it will remain
as long as our nation lives and the world is there to warn us...

There should be nothing false in you! The Jew is dishonest. He is born
that way and is ever full of deceit. You are born to be honest and to
remain honest. Your face does not lie, your words are true, your
actions are clear and can stand before all. You will say no word about
a comrade that you cannot say to his face. If you do so, you destroy
the community and injure your honor and that of the other. You become
dishonest. You would not think of stealing ten pfennig from a comrade.
How trivial that is when compared to stealing honor from someone who
does not realize it, who is unable to defend himself. Compared to
that, the thief one puts in prison has committed but a small offense.
Possessions are of less value than honor. A thief has more honor than
a slanderer. The first demand of honor is that one holds the honor of
others as their highest possession. The next demand of honor is that
one respects the property of others, which they have earned by hard
word and industry. It must again become such in Germany that one can
leave one's doors unlocked at night. It must again be such that every
lost piece of property is returned and that one can trust unknown
citizens with one's money and possessions. We want once again to have
the honor of a farmer. It should be as it still is in the north, where
one can leave one's house and land without locking the door, because
there is no dishonesty. An end must be made of all dishonest behavior.
It should be wrung out of us. There should be a new generation in
Germany, honest in word and deed, because honor is to it more
necessary than life itself. And woe to him who sins against it.

In the National Socialist state, there is no longer property with
which the individual can do with whatever he wishes. There is no
unlimited right of property, only a right that has been earned to
administer it for the good of the whole. Property is a loan. One may
certainly use it, but only to advance the interests of the whole. A
farmer has a field. It belongs to him. And it should belong to him,
for his ancestor tilled it, his fathers toiled on it. It belongs to
him as long as he tills it so that food for other citizens grows on
it. But the field must be taken from him if he leaves it fallow
because he is too lazy or unambitious to till it. A house! Why
shouldn't a German have a house, a home for his children. The
apartment in the city has taken a piece of the fatherland from the
German. His own house and garden give him again a piece of Germany,
and he has a right to that. But it is not an unearned gift. Property
must be earned by the work of the hand or the mind. The ambitious and
hard-working settler in newly-won land will plow more land for himself
and his children than others. Is that a failing on his part? He grows
grain not only for himself, but also for others. What he grows is his
property. But he who through treachery and deceit gains possession of
that which the mind and hands of others have created is a thief and a
deceiver. He is like the swindler and the Jew who, without creating
anything themselves, live greedily from that which they steal from
others using corrupted justice. To eliminate them in Germany is our
highest law. Once Germany's forests were freed of wolves. In the same
way, Germany must be freed of those who are worse and craftier than
wolves.

It is better that the individual suffers under the law than that there
be no law. Law defeats arbitrariness, for all are the same to it.
Humanity is not permitted to exercise supreme justice. But the law
gives the individual judge the measure of justice and punishment.
Justice no longer rests on what the individual thinks, rather the law
must be anchored in the sentiments of the whole people. That is the
case when a people has its own law, not that of another people. The
state is founded on justice. Injustice destroys it. A state without
justice is the playground of freebooters and highwaymen. The farmer,
the worker and the citizen need law to protect their labors. Law
protects honor, life, marriage, possessions, all those things that we
want and must have as the foundations of our state. The judge, fully
independent, projects justice. The policeman is not the representative
of some arbitrary order, rather of that which a people finds good and
right. No sacrifice is too great in the cause of justice. "It is
better that my son die than justice perish in the world," a great
Prussian king once said. We want justice once more to rule in Germany,
that great, unwritten justice that came to us with our blood. It
should be the law in Germany that all obey this justice. Justice is
not that which serves the individual, rather that which serves the
people. That is the supreme law of National Socialism, to which all
must bow.

> its the same for that 'blacks matter' and 'national socialism',
>group hypnotism and mass manipulation of dummies.
>Neither will lead anywhere in the long run.
>And the same for religions.

We should have a nation for White people to preserve the White race.
And we should have socialism because it is a government doing things
to help people.

[Topaz]

On Nov. 26, 1941, Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary about
Japan, "The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the
first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

That Roosevelt wanted to get the US into WW II is now a matter of
record. The Hull Ultimatum was the official start of hostilities with
Japan under International law, and Roosevelt had long violated
declared American neutrality and ordered the US Navy to conduct an
illegal undeclared war against the Germans. Again, neither Japan nor
Germany had done anything to provoke a war with the US... Pearl Harbor
happened AFTER Roosevelt delivered the Hull Ultimatum, which was the
start of hostilities with Japan under international law.

On November 26, 1941, Hull presented the Japanese ambassador with the
Hull note, which as one of its conditions demanded the complete
withdrawal of all Japanese troops from French Indochina and China.
Japanese Prime Minister Tojo Hideki said to his cabinet, this is an
ultimatum".

FDR sent two billion dollars in tanks, guns, fighters, and other aid
to the communists PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR even though most Americans
considered the Soviet Union the worst tyranny on earth and saw no
reason to save it. The Soviet Union probably would have been defeated
by Hitler if it were not for this huge amount of military aid. After
Pearl Harbor, it's well known that Churchill and FDR generously
supplied Stalin to keep him in power, but very few Americans are
aware that aid from FDR prior to Pearl Harbor kept Communism from
collapsing completely in 1941 during the period from June through
early December. This "Saviour of Communism" title for FDR will
eventually be the most damning line if future accurate biographies of
FDR are written in a world returned to sanity.

The German General Erwin Rommel most certainly would have captured
the Suez Canal and the Mideast oil fields if it were not for the
massive quantities of tanks and guns sent by FDR to England to save
the corrupt drunk, Winston Churchill, who had secretly become a stooge
of the Jews, when a wealthy Jew took over Churchill's debts (so that
Churchill could both avoid going bankrupt or having to actually work
for a living as British aristocrats hate to do).

FDR had failed miserably to get America out of the Great Depression,
and many Americans were getting tired of his failed attempts and may
have voted him out of office in 1940 if he had not LIED extensively
telling Americans "I hate war" and that he would keep America out of
World War Two. A real populist with real ideas, Huey Long had been
assassinated before he could challenge FDR for the Democrat nomination
(or as a Third Party candidate) conveniently eliminating a serious
threat to FDR's continued occupation of the White House.

[Topaz]

On Sat, 07 May 2016 09:34:35 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Yes, that is also what wikipedia says.
>But it differs from what Topaz posted a year or so ago (Hitlers speech).
>

as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.

[Topaz]

When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in
1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner
had made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful
cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers. Although
Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and
had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a
man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by
Chairman William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a
loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them.
Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for
Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike
for Jews.


To block Turner's bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish
theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to
launch a "friendly" takeover of the company, and from 1986 until 1995
Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of
non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a
major network were obstructed by Levin's Time Warner, which owns
nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major
deals. When his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for
$34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objection.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never
commanded the "connections" necessary for being a true media master.
He finally decided if you can't lick 'em, join 'em, and he sold out to
Levin. Ted Turner is in one respect a reflection of Steve Case. Both
of these White men are capitalists with no discernible degree of
racial consciousness or responsibility. In July 2001, AOL Time Warner
announced that yet another Jew, Walter Isaacson, formerly the
editorial director of Time, Inc., will become the new chairman and CEO
of CNN News Group, which oversees the news empire that Ted
Turner built.

[Topaz]

COUNT JERZY POTOCKI (Polish Ambassador to the USA)
"Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands. When bearing
public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people
have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe
.................President Roosevelt has been given the power… to
create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are
deliberately heading for." (1934)

CHARLES LINDBERGH (Heroic Aviator)
"The leaders of the British and Jewish races, for reasons which are as
understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours,
for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war."

NEVILLE HENDERSON (British Ambassador to Germany)
"The hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and
enemies of the Nazis."

JOSEPH KENNEDY (Family Patriarch & US Ambassador to the UK)
"As Ambassador to England, Joe would later make clear that he thought
the Jews had `brought on themselves' whatever Hitler did to them.
During a 1938 meeting at the German Embassy in London, Kennedy assured
the German ambassador that America only wanted friendly relations with
Hitler. Joe said that Hitler's government had done `great things' for
the country, and that the Germans were `satisfied' and enjoyed `good
living conditions.' Joe told the ambassador that a recent report which
said the limited food in Germany was being reserved for the army could
not be true. After all, Joe said, the professor who had made the
report `was a Jew.'
Excerpt from "The Sins of the Father"

ARTHUR WELLESLEY (THE 5TH DUKE OF WELLINGTON)
"This (Declaration of War Against Germany) is the fault of the
anti-appeasers and the fu*king Jews."

LORD BEAVERBROOK (Owner of UK's biggest newspaper)
"There are 20,000 German Jews in England - in the professions,
pursuing research. They all work against an accommodation with
Germany."
In a subsequent letter, Beaverbrook adds:
"The Jews have got a big position in the press here. . At last I am
shaken. The Jews may drive us into war."

"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939.
It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international
statesmen who were either of Jewish descent or worked for Jewish
interests."
- Adolf Hitler, April 29, 1945

tomatobubble.com

[abelard]

On Sat, 7 May 2016 14:17:52 -0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
Doctor) wrote:


>Another nutbar in the group.

and keen with it

i do believe he has a message!

i've heard of people who believe they are napoleon...i wonder
who he might believe he is




--
www.abelard.org

[Topaz]

By Richard Edmonds

The facts on the "Holocaust" have been exposed years ago in a
trial in Toronto, Canada. The defendant in the dock was the
German-Canadian, Ernst Zundel, accused by the State prosecutor of
disputing the claim that during the Second World War the Germans had
murdered millions of Jews in purpose-built gas-chambers.

This trial, held in 1985 against Ernst Zundel, is of greatest
importance due to the evidence given at the court by an expert
witness. Professor Raul Hilberg of the University of Vermont, USA,
was recognized by the court to be the world expert on the alleged
"Holocaust". In open court and under oath, Professor Hilberg stated
that he knew of no independent, forensic scientific for the existence
anywhere of a gas-chamber, planned built and operated by the Germans
during the Second World War for the purpose of killing, murdering or
executing Jews or any other persons. Professor Hilberg further stated
that with regard to causes of death in the whole extent of
German-occupied Europe during the Second World War, he was unable to
supply the court with a single autopsy certificate, stating the cause
of death of a single individual to be due to poisoning by cyanide gas.
Cyanide gas was the highly toxic gas allegedly used in the alleged
German gas-chambers.

The origin of the "Holocaust" allegation is to be found in the
trial that the victorious Allies organized against the defeated
Germans foes in the years following the War, at the German city of
Nuremberg. The victorious allies were, of course, the United Stated of
America, the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin, Great Britain and France.
At this trial of the defeated German leaders, the Allies were
simultaneously Judge, Jury, Prosecutor, and Hangman in their own case
and in their own court. The Allies' Nuremberg trial was publicly
condemned at the time by principled, leading Americans. The Chief
Justice of the US Supreme Court, Judge Harlan F. Stone, condemned the
trial as a "lynching". US Senator Robert Taft condemned the Allies'
trial, as a "travesty and a perversion of justice". Taft described
America's participation as a blot on the honor of the United States.
Senator Taft predicted that in the future Europeans would condemn
America for its participation in a "lynching".

The standard rules of evidence were discarded. For example, the
Allies held that their allegations of German atrocities, printed and
published to saturation point in the Allies' war time-time press, were
to be accepted at face value as "Public Knowledge" and were of such a
notoriety that without any further independent, judicial
investigation, the Allies' court could accept them as of probative
value. If the Allies said it, then it could not be questioned.

To their undying shame, the Allies employed torture to extract
self-condemning confessions of guilt from their helpless prisoners. I
will present here two notorious examples of vicious torture.

We know that Rudolf Hoess, a former Kommandant at the Auschwitz was
captured by a special unit of the British Army at the end of the
Second World War, and we know that Hoess was tortured and beaten
almost to the point of death, and then given a choice: either to
confess to committing the murder of millions of Jews as Auschwitz, or
else, he and his family, wife and children would suffer the
consequences. Hoess' statement obtained under torture was presented
and accepted at the Allies' court as proving the claim that Auschwitz
in Poland is the location of the mass murder of millions. In response
to rumors of abuses inflicted on German prisoners of war held captive
by the US Army in post-War Germany, the American judge, Edward van
Roden was commissioned by the US Army to investigate the situation.
Van Roden examined German prisoners, and found that many had been
tortured; that more than a hundred had had their testicles crushed
beyond repair. These men had been tortured, as in the case of the
Auschwitz Kommandant Hoess, in order to extract from them the
self-condemning confessions of guilt that the Allies needed to
buttress their propaganda-lies. On his return to the USA, Judge van
Roden published his findings at press-conferences held in New York and
Chicago.

The "Holocaust" allegation is nothing but a propaganda-lie concocted
by the war- time Allies Nuremberg lynching by the cynical trampling on
all the principles of American and British jurisprudence.

The disgrace that remains is that 70 years later across most of
mainland Europe it is a criminal offense to question the findings of
the Allies Nuremberg trial.

[Topaz]

The Nuremberg court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of
the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant
African, Asian or Latin American countries. American civilian judges
to a large extent made up the core of the Allied judges-not military
career officers, who might have had some understanding and compassion
for what the military leaders and the civilian government under
extreme war time conditions lived through. They could have undoubtedly
had a greater appreciation of why some of the wartime measures were
undertaken by Germany in the desperate days of the war. The "liberal
country club" experienced set of small town American judges could not.

Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on their war against
the Germans by other means long after the shooting had stopped-not by
bombs and bullets but this time by falsely diagnosing psychologists
or, worse, by giving torturers a free hand: cynical and brutal
investigators who could, and frequently did, mistreat, beat, whip,
starve, suffocate and mutilate their prisoners into giving confessions
and statements which were as cruelly extracted as were the confessions
from witches during the disgusting witchcraft trials of the Dark Ages.
The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to not only by
Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States, but also Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, a
man of the Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser
alleged Nazi war criminals after the war.

Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial interview
given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the
interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi
Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge
on the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from
European living space because they considered them harmful to the war
effort and to Western European civilization.

Here is how the article described the lot that came to post-war
Germany to settle private scores, as seen through Justice
Wennerstrum's eyes, after he quit in disgust:

"If I had known seven months ago what I know today," (Wennerstrum)
told friends as he packed to leave for America, "I would never have
come here. . . The initial war crimes trial here was judged and
prosecuted by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of the
time, effort and expenses devoted to whitewashing the Allies and
placing the sole blame for World War II upon Germany.

"What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals," the
judge continued, "applies to the prosecution. The high ideals
announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been
evident.

"The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from
vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has
failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to
avoid future wars. The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome.
Linguists were needed. the Americans are notably poor linguists.
Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became
Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in
Europe's hatreds and prejudices. . . (emphasis added) (Chicago Daily
Tribune, 23 February 1948)

In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of them
Jews-as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience in
dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us
who are German and can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity
of some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns of speech,
even in radio broadcasts and newsreels.

Most of the evidence in the trials was "documentary," selected by the
Allies from the large tonnage of captured records. The document
selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to
those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case
and were made available to the defense. The Allies could choose to
release or to hide and/or destroy any documents which did not fit
their post-war strategy or plans at Nuremberg. The Allies admitted
elsewhere that their propaganda Ministries and Intelligence Services
had previously forged Nazi stamps, Nazi passes, Nazi passports,
orders, ID cards etc. which fooled the Nazis many times because they
were so perfect and over which the Allied propagandists gloat to this
day. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to think what
these same Allied Government agencies, their personnel and forgers of
documents could do now with all the captured genuine German
document-producing facilities, the captured type writers, rubber
stamps and tons of letter heads of all sizes and description and of
any National Socialist organization you care to mention.

Even setting aside questionable "documentary" evidence, let's look at
some of the accused's "testimony"-how it was extracted, and what it
really means.

Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg Tribunal
stand certain words: "Genocide" "Gas chamber." "Six million." These
words, and the value judgment concepts they connote, were derived
largely from the admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess,
the one-time war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz.

Rudolf Hoess was the Allies' most important witness to the
"Holocaust." His affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively
both by the prosecution and in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg,
as well as by the press. It was his testimony which laid the
foundation and validated the claim of the ". . . extermination of
millions of people by gas at Auschwitz." Hoess's "confession" is
heavily relied upon by historians like Raul Hilberg and others as a
primary documentary source to this day.

It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous
"atrocities," and he also confirmed the "truth" under oath of an
affidavit which he agreed to sign for the prosecution. In it, he
confessed to having given orders for the gassing of millions of
victims. The affidavit, by the way, was in English, a language he did
not speak or understand, according to family members.

We now know from the book "Legions of Death" that Rudolf Hoess was
beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police
Force upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter until he gave this
very devastating "testimony" and "affidavit" used by the Allies
propagandists ever since. You be the judge. Here is an excerpt from
this book by Rupert Butler, published by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235:
At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to six
intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and
menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated
techniques of sustained and merciless investigation.

No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely
necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke's tone
was deliberately low-key and conversational.

He began mildly: "I understand your husband came to see you as
recently as last night."
Frau Hoess merely replied: "I haven't seen him since he absconded
months
ago"
Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach:
"You know that isn't true." Then all at once his manner had changed
and he was shouting: "If you don't tell us, we'll turn you over to the
Russians and they'll put you before a firing squad. Your son will go
to Siberia."
It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed
the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now
called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son and
daughter produced precisely identical information.
When they found Hoess, here is how the capture played out. Clarke, one
of the participants, recalls it vividly:

"He was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair of silk
pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of
them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it because
we had rammed a torch (flashlight) into his mouth."
Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms.
Clarke yelled: "What is your name?"

With each answer of "Franz Lang," Clarke's hand crashed into the face
of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and
admitted who he was.

The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants
in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following
an order signed by Hoess.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."

A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his
throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
German: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine." . . .

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was
made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It
took three days to get a coherent statement out of him.

This statement, tortured and terrorized out of him, was the one we are
all familiar with-the "proof" for the so-called "gassing of the Jews."
Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is a totally
unreliable witness-and is it any wonder? He spoke of a concentration
camp "Wolzek" which does not even exist. He swore that 2,500,000
people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million
died of disease, for a total dead of three million. The Toronto Sun of
July 18, 1990 claimed 1.5 million. The Washington Post, on the same
date, also mentioned 1.5 million. Quoted from an article by Krzyszlov
Leski, we have the following:

Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the
Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1
million.
The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews,
despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many
Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration camp. . .
The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of
Hitler's final solution."

Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of the
Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates,
saying: "It sounds shocking and strange." . . .
Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel's Yad Vashem memorial for
Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures were
correct.

"The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death
camp's Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated."

But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number
killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by the
Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives.
A most convenient excuse! In 1989 I organized a write-in campaign to
persuade the then-Soviet Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz
Death Registers captured in 1945 when the Red Army took over the
Auschwitz complex. A few months afterwards this actually happened.
Gorbachev released these all-important documents to the Red Cross,
which showed in minute detail why people had died in Auschwitz, the
cause and time of death, their birth, address etc.

74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only
approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of
Poles and members of other nationalities.

The incredibly shrinking Holocaust! The "millions" that we have heard
about for half a century and that we hear and read about still today
all started with the "testimony" beaten out of poor Hoess on that
horrible night in defeated Germany.

Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in a recent Vanity
Fair article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning stated
that

". . . Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The
revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try and
discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole." (Holocaust Revisionism
Source Book, 1994, p. 1)

But does that invalidate the Revisionist claims or their strategy? Not
at all. On the contrary. After all, Hoess's testimony was used as the
skeleton on which the entire Holocaust myth about mass gassings was
constructed in the first place. Revisionists have concentrated on
Hoess precisely because he is probably the most important source for
Holocaust historians' conclusions on and exaggerations about the
Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who wrote the "Bible" of the "Holocaust," The
Destruction of the European Jews, (Holmes & Meier, Revised Edition,
1985 ) relies on Hoess's testimony heavily, and Hoess was the primary
witness relied upon by the Nuremberg Tribunal in their judgment
regarding the "extermination of the Jews," even though he told the
court of having been savagely tortured.

What's more, Hoess's treatment by the Allies and the total
unreliability of his "evidence" are not unusual. We don't know how
many of the accused at the Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated,
since references in the trial transcripts to their mistreatment was
expunged from the record. (Read this again! Material damaging to the
Allies was expunged from the Nuremberg trial transcripts!)
An example is Streicher's testimony. Streicher was reported in the
London Times as having testified that he was tortured, whipped, spat
on, and forced to drink from a latrine. (Streicher Opens His Case, The
Times, April 27, 1946). His testimony was later expunged from the
record of the trial with the active participation of the prosecution,
the president of the Tribunal, and even his own defense lawyer!

Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg prisoners,
however, have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter Sauckel's
reference to threats to his family, which did remain in the
transcript. During his testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified
that he signed a document, even though he did not know what was in
that document, after his family of 10 children was threatened with
deportation to Russia.

And finally, it must not be forgotten that this is the only judicial
proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where there was
no appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review of
the proceedings or any verdicts that this so-called international
military tribunal arrived at. Their judgments over the leadership of
Europe's most populous state, against whom they had just fought a
murderous, near genocidal war, were final and deadly.
Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to all the
emotional hype in the mass media on television and radio of these
days. And for what?

The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for you in his
astounding book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, admitting to the
mother of all frauds. In his own words, at the conclusion of the
agreement Goldman obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the German Quisling
State's first Allied-appointed chancellor,

". . . the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion. . .
Without the German reparations that started coming through during its
first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present
infrastructure: All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are
German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great
deal of Israel's industry . . . and that is setting aside the
individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds
of millions of dollars in German currency each year . . . In some
years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as
much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from
international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to
the principle. (emphasis added)

Not anywhere you look!
After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped of the
hyperbole and smoke screens which surrounds them, it can be put quite
bluntly:

The Allies did it all. The Allies fought a war on foreign shores-in
part to establish the State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand
to political ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of
the Nuremberg trials, the Allies helped the establishment and
financing of Israel. So as to secure Israel, the Allies and their
personnel became accusers, researchers, interrogators, prosecutors,
judges and executioners-all in one! The Allies supplied the "experts"
who sifted through the German documents, which were all totally in
Allied control, highlighting incriminating documents, discarding
exonerating evidence. These investigators were told only to "find"
incriminating documents against the hapless accused, as I was told by
the American scholar Charles Weber, Ph.D., who had been one of these
Allied researchers, and who testified at my own trials. These
researchers were told were told to ignore the documents that might
have spared the lives of the accused German leaders. When all was said
and done, there was not even an appeal.

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the American Chief
Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned in the
Viking Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746 :

"Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in
Nuremberg," he remarked. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but
I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding
according to common law.

This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned
ideas."
Some sanctimonious fraud!

Some record for the Allies to be "proud of"-to have helped manufacture
such a sick, perverted Marxist/Zionist inspired legal farce that would
condemn to death the leaders of the only military effort ever
undertaken to stop the "evil empire" from bringing to us all their
"hate law" ideology.

Are now the chickens coming home to roost? That's how America and the
"free world" have showed their gratitude to the defenders of Europe
and Western Civilization: by hanging brave and honest men who tried so
valiantly for so long to stop the decadence and the hypocrisy of what
we now call, shuddering, ". . . the coming New World Order"!

I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially murdered at
Nuremberg. They were the world's martyrs, not villains. Not one of
them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial. Not one!
Let's not forget they sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end
themselves, to save Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs
in robes and gangsters in uniform and by the conspiracies hatched by
shysters from the ghettos and shtetls of Eastern Europe.

[Topaz]

"The problem is not propaganda but the relentless control of
the kind of things we think about
by Brian Eno

When I first visited Russia, in 1986, I made friends with a
musician whose father had been Brezhnev's personal doctor.
One day we were talking about life during 'the period of
stagnation' -- the Brezhnev era. 'It must have been strange
being so completely immersed in propaganda,' I said.

'Ah, but there is the difference. We knew it was
propaganda,' replied Sacha.

That is the difference. Russian propaganda was so obvious
that most Russians were able to ignore it. They took it for
granted that the government operated in its own interests
and any message coming from it was probably slanted -- and
they discounted it.

In the West the calculated manipulation of public opinion to
serve political and ideological interests is much more
covert and therefore much more effective. Its greatest
triumph is that we generally don't notice it -- or laugh at
the notion it even exists. We watch the democratic process
taking place -- heated debates in which we feel we could
have a voice -- and think that, because we have 'free'
media, it would be hard for the Government to get away with
anything very devious without someone calling them on it.

It takes something as dramatic as the invasion of Iraq to
make us look a bit more closely and ask: 'How did we get
here?' How exactly did it come about that, in a world of
AIDS, global warming, 30-plus active wars, several famines,
cloning, genetic engineering, and two billion people in
poverty, practically the only thing we all talked about for
a year was Iraq and Saddam Hussein? Was it really that big a
problem? Or were we somehow manipulated into believing the
Iraq issue was important and had to be fixed right now --
even though a few months before few had mentioned it, and
nothing had changed in the interim...

What occurs to me in reading their book is that the new
American approach to social control is so much more
sophisticated and pervasive that it really deserves a new
name. It isn't just propaganda any more, it's 'prop-agenda'.
It's not so much the control of what we think, but the
control of what we think about. When our governments want to
sell us a course of action, they do it by making sure it's
the only thing on the agenda, the only thing everyone's
talking about. And they pre-load the ensuing discussion with
highly selected images, devious and prejudicial language,
dubious linkages, weak or false 'intelligence' and selected
'leaks'...

With the ground thus prepared, governments are happy if you
then 'use the democratic process' to agree or disagree --
for, after all, their intention is to mobilize enough
headlines and conversation to make the whole thing seem real
and urgent. The more emotional the debate, the better.
Emotion creates reality, reality demands action.

An example of this process is one highlighted by Rampton and
Stauber which, more than any other, consolidated public and
congressional approval for the 1991 Gulf war. We recall the
horrifying stories, incessantly repeated, of babies in
Kuwaiti hospitals ripped out of their incubators and left to
die while the Iraqis shipped the incubators back to Baghdad
- 312 babies, we were told.

The story was brought to public attention by Nayirah, a
15-year-old 'nurse' who, it turned out later, was the
daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and a member of
the Kuwaiti royal family. Nayirah had been tutored and
rehearsed by the Hill & Knowlton PR agency (which in turn
received $14 million from the American government for their
work in promoting the war). Her story was entirely
discredited within weeks but by then its purpose had been
served: it had created an outraged and emotional mindset
within America which overwhelmed rational discussion.

As we are seeing now, the most recent Gulf war entailed many
similar deceits: false linkages made between Saddam,
al-Qaeda and 9/11, stories of ready-to-launch weapons that
didn't exist, of nuclear programs never embarked upon. As
Rampton and Stauber show, many of these allegations were
discredited as they were being made, not least by this
newspaper, but nevertheless were retold.

Throughout all this, the hired-gun PR companies were busy,
preconditioning the emotional landscape. Their marketing
talents were particularly useful in the large-scale
manipulation of language that the campaign entailed. The
Bushites realized, as all ideologues do, that words create
realities, and that the right words can overwhelm any chance
of balanced discussion. Guided by the overtly imperial
vision of the Project for a New American Century (whose
members now form the core of the American administration),
the PR companies helped finesse the language to create an
atmosphere of simmering panic where American imperialism
would come to seem not only acceptable but right, obvious,
inevitable and even somehow kind.

Aside from the incessant 'weapons of mass destruction',
there were 'regime change' (military invasion), 'pre-emptive
defense' (attacking a country that is not attacking you),
'critical regions' (countries we want to control), the 'axis
of evil' (countries we want to attack), 'shock and awe'
(massive obliteration) and 'the war on terror' (a hold-all
excuse for projecting American military force anywhere).

Meanwhile, US federal employees and military personnel were
told to refer to the invasion as 'a war of liberation' and
to the Iraqi paramilitaries as 'death squads', while the
reliably sycophantic American TV networks spoke of
'Operation Iraqi Freedom' -- just as the Pentagon asked them
to -- thus consolidating the supposition that Iraqi freedom
was the point of the war. Anybody questioning the invasion
was 'soft on terror' (liberal) or, in the case of the UN,
'in danger of losing its relevance'.

When I was young, an eccentric uncle decided to teach me how
to lie. Not, he explained, because he wanted me to lie, but
because he thought I should know how it's done so I would
recognize when I was being lied to. I hope writers such as
Rampton and Stauber and others may have the same effect and
help to emasculate the culture of spin and dissembling that
is overtaking our political establishments.

[Topaz]

The German declaration of war:

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DECWAR.htm

"It points out that there ALREADY WAS A WAR between the US and
Germany, a war that the US did NOT declare per international law. Read
this declaration and research the facts: the incidents mentioned in it
are TRUE. We acted as a belligerent nation, not as a neutral one. FDR
even told everyone that he started a war with Germany - he just didn't
bother to do it LEGALLY and he failed to tell people he was violating
the constitution."


The U.S. made unprovoked attacks on many German and Italian subs
under direct orders from the White House. During this time, we were
not legally at war. We had positive kills of at least two U-Boats.
JS

[Topaz]

Jews Play Leading Role in Promoting 'Multiculturalism'
Israel Broadcasting Authority (Israel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtVEUaCKOh0&feature=em-share_video_user

Europeans must "learn to be multicultural," says Jewish activist
Barbara Lerner Spectre. During an interview in Sweden with Israeli
media, this US-born woman adds that "Jews will be resented because of
our leading role" in bringing about this "huge transformation" of
Europe. Runtime: 1:17 mins.

[abelard]

On Sun, 08 May 2016 04:14:36 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>The Nuremberg court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of
>the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant
>African, Asian or Latin American countries

indeed...we do the same in other murder trials...we don't select
people who are neutral about murder...
we don't select rapists and burglars as the jury...

the jury is usually biased against murder...

it is so unfair...

why didn't we choose quislings providing steel and heavy water
for a national socialist a-bomb...or the swiss banking enablers of
trading jewish gold teeth for bombs...
why not some japanese or those who gave shelter to the mass murders
after the war in s. america...

there is just no sense of balance...no justice at all...


you're an idiot...

rest binned unread as usual



--
www.abelard.org

[Topaz]

The Enduring, Dangerous Legacy of Winston Churchill
Mark Weber - Podcast
http://www.ihr.org/mwreport/2012-02-08
Winston Churchill, Britain's Prime Minister during World War II, is
honored for his stubborn "bull dog" hostility toward Hitler and
Nazism, and his important role in ultimately destroying Third Reich
Germany. In fact, his policies brought death and destruction on a mass
scale, Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe, a shattered
British empire, and Britain itself exhausted and bankrupt. The
well-polished image of Churchill as a courageous and principled
defender of freedom is based on a deceitful and ultimately dangerous
narrative of history.

[Topaz]

[Topaz]

Senator McCarthy, American Press, May 20th, 1949 (on Nuremberg trials)

"I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the effect that
the accused persons were beaten up, maltreated and physically tortured
by methods which could only be conceived by sick brains. They were
subjected to mock trials and pretended executions, they were told that
their families would be deprived of their ration cards. All these
things were carried out with the approval of the Public Prosecutor to
secure the psychological atmosphere necessary for the extortion of the
required confessions. If the United States lets such acts committed by
a few people go unpunished, then the whole world can rightly criticize
us severely and forever doubt the correctness of our motives and our
moral integrity."

[Topaz]

by Edgar J. Steele

Finally, Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings has come clean. He dared to
say what everybody else in Washington already knew: America dances to
Israel's tune, as dispensed through its Washington lobby, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You can't have an Israel
policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here," said Mr. Hollings
from the floor of the Senate just two days ago. Of course, now it's
safe for him to do so, since he is retiring in a few months.

From the reaction to Mr. Hollings' statement, you would think he had
proposed that American Jews be rounded up, tattooed and sent off to
death camps. Rabbi Philip Silverstein of Columbia?s Beth Shalom
synagogue, who claimed to be "horrified" by Hollings' remark,
hysterically ranted, "It makes him anti-Israel. It's
anti-Semitic...it's dangerous." Abraham Foxman, National Director of
the Anti-Defamation League, issued what has become the ADL's standard
denunciation of any national figure who implies, even, that America
carries Israel's water: "To hear such crudeness, such ugliness, such
classical anti-Semitism. It's sad."

The ingratitude apparent in Mr. Hollings' recent statements
particularly must rankle AIPAC's membership, since they thought they
had bought and paid for him, to the tune of $73,275. Of course,
that's peanuts compared to what has been paid for some of AIPAC's
favorites, such as the Senators from Pennsylvania (Arlen Spector -
$366,123), Iowa (Thomas Harkin - $423,895) and Michigan (Carl Levin -
$564,858).

What? You say the Senator from your state won't return your calls?
Well, how much did you bribe...er, give in "campaign contributions" to
him or her recently? What? Well, no wonder he or she refuses to
listen to you. No wonder Israel calls the shots. Is it really any
wonder? And AIPAC is just one of Israel's seemingly countless lobby
groups.

There are lots of other Jewish organizations that also bribe...er,
contribute to Congressmen, such as the World Jewish Congress and The
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, just
to name a couple. And there are a great many wealthy individual Jews
who give serious, and I do mean serious, bribes...er, contributions,
such as Seagram's heir Edgar Bronfman, whose work on behalf of Israel
was recognized with the American Presidential Medal of Freedom (look,
you have to admit that this is so off the wall that I couldn't just
make up stuff like this). Is it really any surprise for you to learn
that well over half of all bribes...er, campaign contributions now
come from Jews?

Getting back to Mr. Hollings for a moment, the 82-year-old gentleman
from South Carolina is retiring from public office after 38 years in
the Senate. That's longer than most Americans have been alive, you
know. Oddly enough, 38 years also is almost exactly as long as it
took for the coup to take place. What coup? You really haven't been
paying attention, have you? Why, the one now reaching its climax in
America. You know, the coup that began with JFK's assassination. The
coup that put the Zionist International Banker cabal atop America for
good.

I appreciate that Hollings has come clean at last, but what I really
want to know is - where have you been for the past 38 years, Fritz?
And where were all your colleagues while America was sold down the
river? You know, the ones busy shuffling their feet and averting
their eyes during your recent floor speech? Yes, the very ones with
whom you took that oath in which you swore allegiance to America and
against all enemies, both domestic and foreign.

Bush recently signed off on Israel's current campaign of genocide
against the Palestinian people whose land Israel steals, inch by mile,
on a daily basis. Why? Because he, and every President stretching
back nearly one hundred years to Woodrow Wilson, the very first
American President to sell America out to Zionist interests, has bowed
low before Zionism.

"Israel's governments have mobilized the collective power of US Jewry
- which dominates Congress and the media to a large degree - against
them. Faced by this vigorous opposition, all the presidents, great and
small, football players and movie stars - folded one after another."
Israeli journalist and peace activist, Uri Avnery, Ha'aretz, March 6,
1991.

John F. Kennedy reneged on his deal and look what it got him.

Incidentally, let me tell you once again about the absolute last word
on the JFK assassination, Final Judgment, by Michael C. Piper - it's
available once again, in a new, expanded edition at
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf. Do yourself a
favor and order a copy. Get this latest, updated version and give
your old one away, if you already own a copy (yes, I know you paid
upwards of $200 for it on the Internet while the book was out of print
because essentially it was banned, but think of it as bread upon the
water).

During his speech to AIPAC the other day, George the Second referred
to a picture we all now have seen, of four black-clad men standing
behind Nicholas Berg and accused of having executed him, saying, "The
faces of the terrorists were cloaked, but we have seen their kind
before." Yes, indeed, Mr. President. We certainly have. We see them
every day, in our own ranks. How ironic that you should bring up this
specific incident, which already has been debunked so thoroughly by so
many.

Just as with 9-11, which now conclusively has been shown to have been
a "false flag" operation, not to mention the Oklahoma City Bombing,
the Berg decapitation quite simply wasn't done by the people being
blamed by George. There really isn't room here today to list, let
alone develop, the mounting anomalies that call the Berg affair into
question and there is not yet a unified site that discusses them all,
but go here and here for some of the more complete preliminary
discussions.

George the Second also told his masters, as represented by those
assembled at the AIPAC Conference: "(A)ll terrorists burn with the
same hatred. They hate all who reject their grim vision of tyranny.
They hate people who love freedom. They kill without mercy. They kill
without shame. And they count their victories in the death of the
innocent." Yes, Mr. President. Once again, you have said something
with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Problem is, we are the terrorists, because it is America that burns
with hatred these days. America that hates those who reject its grim
vision of democracy. America that hates so many who know the real
meaning of freedom. America that kills women without mercy. America
that kills children without shame. You and the Jewish organ grinders
for whom you are but a dancing monkey count your victories in the
deaths of innocent Palestinians and Iraqis. You have shamed us and
you have condemned us all to Hell, right along with you and your
Jewish masters.

George the Second also told the AIPAC audience that "(W)e have a duty
to expose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found." He
followed that up with "The demonization of Israel...can be a flimsy
cover for anti-Semitism." With those two statements, George the
Second made crystal clear where his loyalties lie with regard to the
mushrooming portion of America's population that objects to our Middle
Eastern campaign of conquest: With Israel and against America, that's
where.

Could it be any more clearly stated, folks? Of course, George is the
same fellow who gave new life to the phrase, "yer either with us or
agin us." At least, now we know what he meant by "us," and it most
assuredly isn't us, fellow Americans.

In contrast to what George the Second thinks, I rather liked what
Fritz Hollings had to say in response to his Jewish critics from the
Senate floor two days ago: "I want them to apologize to me. Talking
about 'anti-Semitic.' They're not getting by with it."

Finland avoided military invasion and conquest by Joseph Stalin's
Soviet Union back in the 1940s by adopting a Soviet-style government,
paying fealty to the USSR and otherwise acting just as it would, had
it been conquered by force. Today, the US has gone along with
International Zionism in precisely the same fashion: installing
Jewish and Christian Zionists in all governmental power points, bowing
to the wishes of Israel's lobbyists, removing Christianity from
America's culture by edict of an increasingly-Jewish judiciary,
fighting Israel's fights and even purging those who disagree with
foreign Jews pushing Zionism by imprisoning its own citizen political
dissidents on phony charges. Of course, Finland had the example of
20-80 million Russian Christians executed right next door early last
century, simply for being anti-Semitic, a lesson that America seems to
have forgotten. The term "Finlandization" has come to refer to
quislings like Finland and, now, America.

I will be speaking at the Duke International European American Unity
and Leadership Conference in New Orleans this next weekend, May 28-30.
Call 985-626-7714 or go here to reserve on line. From David Duke's
web site promoting the conference: "The leaders who will be present
at the conference recognize that the enormous media and financial
power of Zionism is not just a Palestinian problem, but the greatest
single threat to the European and other peoples of the world. The
Unity and Leadership conference is about setting an effective agenda
for the restoration of our rights, freedoms and heritage." You who
follow this list regularly know that I will be pulling no punches in
pursuit of this very agenda during my speech. And, yes, it is that
David Duke: the ex-Congressman.

For those who have indicated an interest in going, but been reluctant
to sign up because my name does not appear on the list of scheduled
speakers, rest easy. It's right there - I'm one of the "other
prominent speakers." Be assured that I will be speaking, even if I
have to do it on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. And I make it a
point of honor at these affairs to attend all proceedings and to be
available to members of this list at all times throughout.

Already, Mark Potok of the very Jewish Southern Poverty Law Center,
one of Zionism's many American apologist-cum-attack dogs, is calling
this a world-class gathering of anti-Semites. To him, I say: Unlike
Mr. Hollings, no apology to me is necessary. Just remember, though,
that's Mr. Anti-Semite to you!

New America. An idea whose time has come.

[Topaz]

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]

"The Katyn Forest is an area in Poland were the Soviets had
massacred thousands of Polish cadre. When the Germans wrested control
from the Soviets they were informed of thousands being driven out to
the forest never to be seen again. The Germans located the mass graves
and did a forensic archeological investigation.
At the Nuremberg trials where the Soviets sat as prosecutors and
judges themselves they introduced the massacre as a German crime and
the Allied members allowed it even though they knew who really did it,
which tells us something ugly about the nature of the trials. Super
exemplifying the basic mode of Holocaust evidence, the Soviets
submitted a report hundreds of pages long totally founded on
"eyewitness" accounts. The reality eventually surfaced in the form of
an extant German report, complete with photographs of the excavation
as it was happening along with foreign forensic experts and
journalists invited and Allied POW officers brought in to witness the
scene, all photographed at the scene.
With the advent of Glasnost the Soviets eventually came to admit to
the crime.

The German report stands ironically and poetically as the only
real documented forensic investigation ever performed on any mass
grave stemming from the WW II era.

Nuremberg Tribunal

The incident of the Katyn Forest being introduced to the
Nuremberg Tribunal stands as monolithic evidence that the trials were
a farce. In addition to that one grand indictment the determinations
of the Tribunal also included finding the defendants guilty of mass
extermination at camps in Germany, since erased from the story, and
the 4,000,000 number for Auschwitz currently 1,000,000. Inquiring
minds have gone over the records of the trials and the case for a
kangaroo court is outstanding."

[Siri Cruise]

In article <2o1uib1o5q0im0fif...@4ax.com>,

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

> On Nov. 26, 1941, Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary about
> Japan, "The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the
> first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

The US made no military intervention on behalf of French, British, and Dutch
colonies, nor did it threaten to do so. Japan chose to attack the US territories
of the Philipines and Hawaii. Had they chosen to bypass the US, the US would
have continued to watch not fight.

The Japanese army like the German government had no conception of what the US
was capable of, and neither chose wisely.

The Japanese navy was the only one that realised what they were facing and
predicted they could only maintain superiority for a year. Actually they lost
superiority in only half a year at Midway.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
If you assume the final scene is a dying delusion as Tom Cruise drowns below
the Louvre, then Edge of Tomorrow has a happy ending. Kill Tom repeat..

[Siri Cruise]

In article <g91uibhh9drm3ure5...@4ax.com>,

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

> "It points out that there ALREADY WAS A WAR between the US and
> Germany, a war that the US did NOT declare per international law. Read

The US has always maintained the right of neutrals to use international waters
for commercial shipping since the beginning of the republic when the
Constitution and its marines challenged pirates off the shores of Tripoli. Until
Germany declared war on the US, the US Navy did not escort merchant ships in UK
territorial waters, nor did it pursue the Germany Navy, such as the Bismarck,
except when the German ships enterred their security zones in international
water. Ships enterred territorial waters of Republic of Ireland, UK, Spain,
Portugal, Vichy France, etc at their own risk.

The US Navy showed the US flag while escorting in international waters. The
German navy was allowed to respect US neutrality and avoid contact. The German
navy chose to initiate all conflicts before 8 December. If Germany decided the
neutral countries escorting ships in international waters was an act of war,
that was Germany's peculiar view of neutrality.


It's interesting to note that because of the hostility of Germany to 'Jewish
science' and Jews, it and Japan had already lost the war by winter 1940 (even
though that did not become obvious until August 1945). Germany had destroyed its
talent pool necessary to create a uranium bomb; it didn't even have enough
talent left to construct a nuclear power reactor. Even if the US never enterred
the war, UK could have used the shared research to build facilities in Canada
and bombed Germany. Germany would have to keep the US out of the war and conquer
Canada and Australia to avoid atomic bombs.

Actually Speer and others were aware that NSDAP's hard on for killing Jews was
undercutting German war production during the invasion of the USSR.

Another side effect is that the internet language is primarily english when it
could have been polish or german. Most of the theoretical foundations for
computer science was done in Poland and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Instead
of cooperating with Poland to become the economic superpower of Europe, NSDAP's
hardon for murderring Jews and Slavs led to the murder-suicide pact in eastern
Europe starting in 1940; the best mathematical minds of their generation were
murderred or were blown out of their skulls during the war with the USSR. As the
last man standing, programmable computers were invented in the US. Zuse survived
the war, but in the ruins of NSDAP's Germany never became more than a footnote.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <er0uibl71qrk2r28a...@4ax.com>,

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

> The Nuremberg court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of
> the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant

Lesson to be learned: do not start wars and commit war crimes and then choose to
lose the war.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <rh4uibpbv5ksg8rsf...@4ax.com>,

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

> "The Katyn Forest is an area in Poland were the Soviets had

Does anyone claim the USSR was morally superior to NSDAP Germany?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <eq3uibh1clof7l3eo...@4ax.com>,
Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Senator McCarthy

Now there is a name held in high repute.

[abelard]

On Sun, 08 May 2016 07:01:26 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <eq3uibh1clof7l3eo...@4ax.com>,
> Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Senator McCarthy
>
>Now there is a name held in high repute.

just so...

a 'democrat' posing as a republican because the republicans
wouldn't elect him!


--
www.abelard.org

[saracene]

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 10:27:48 AM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2016 04:14:36 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Nuremberg court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of
> >the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant
> >African, Asian or Latin American countries
>
>
> indeed...we do the same in other murder trials...we don't select
> people who are neutral about murder...
> we don't select rapists and burglars as the jury...

At Nuremburg One of the main prosecutors was this charming fellow:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky

[abelard]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 11:17:21 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

can't be bothered

with a name like that, he sounds like one of those inferior slavs
that national socialists hoped to enslave...

that worked out about as well as every socialist plan...

>> the jury is usually biased against murder...
>>

--
www.abelard.org

[saracene]

I am sorry to say that you are the idiot if you really believe the Nuremburg trials were an admirable precedent and a great triumph of abstract justice.

[abelard]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 11:41:31 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>

you said that...which suggests that you are an idiot...

but there's not a chance you can challenge the level
of idiocy demonstrated by your fellow national
socialist


--
www.abelard.org

[saracene]

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 7:47:27 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:


> >>
> >I am sorry to say that you are the idiot if you really believe the Nuremburg trials were an admirable precedent and a great triumph of abstract justice.
>
> you said that...which suggests that you are an idiot...

What exactly in my statement would suggest that? I know you appear to subscribe to a lot of American style cliches. Pressed though, you tend to deny believing in anything specific.

[abelard]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 12:05:41 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 7:47:27 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:

>> >I am sorry to say that you are the idiot if you really believe the Nuremburg trials were an admirable precedent and a great triumph of abstract justice.
>>
>> you said that...which suggests that you are an idiot...
>
>What exactly in my statement would suggest that? I know you appear to subscribe to a lot of American style cliches. Pressed though, you tend to deny believing in anything specific.

i believe that you have a loose screw or two...your national
socialist mate has a whole draw full

you behave like a down-market door to door salesman...

>> but there's not a chance you can challenge the level
>> of idiocy demonstrated by your fellow national
>> socialist
>>
>

--
www.abelard.org

[saracene]

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 8:15:47 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:


> >What exactly in my statement would suggest that? I know you appear to subscribe to a lot of American style cliches. Pressed though, you tend to deny believing in anything specific.
>
> i believe that you have a loose screw or two...your national
> socialist mate has a whole draw full
>
> you behave like a down-market door to door salesman...
>
> >> but there's not a chance you can challenge the level
> >> of idiocy demonstrated by your fellow national
> >> socialist
> >>

You can't answer. I see,

[saracene]

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 7:22:35 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:


> >

> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky
>
> can't be bothered
>
> with a name like that, he sounds like one of those inferior slavs
> that national socialists hoped to enslave...
>

In 1936, Vyshinsky achieved international infamy as the prosecutor at the Zinoviev-Kamenev trial (this trial had 9 other defendants), the first of the Moscow Trials during the Great Purge, lashing its defenseless victims with vituperative rhetoric:[24]

Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with that vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips, putrefying the great ideals of Marxism!... Down with these abject animals! Let's put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let's exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation! Let's push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!

He often punctuated speeches with phrases like "Dogs of the Fascist bourgeoisie," "mad dogs of Trotskyism," "dregs of society," "decayed people," "terrorist thugs and degenerates," and "accursed vermin."[25] This dehumanization aided in what historian Arkady Vaksberg calls "a hitherto unknown type of trial where there was not the slightest need for evidence: what evidence did you need when you were dealing with 'stinking carrion' and 'mad dogs'?"[26]

He is also attributed as the author of an infamous quote from the Stalin era: "Give me a man and I will find the crime."[27]

During the trials, Vyshinsky misappropriated the house and money of Leonid Serebryakov (one of the defendants of the infamous Moscow Trials), who was later executed.[28]

[abelard]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 12:23:29 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 7:22:35 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:

>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky
>>
>> can't be bothered
>>
>> with a name like that, he sounds like one of those inferior slavs
>> that national socialists hoped to enslave...
>>
>In 1936, Vyshinsky achieved international infamy as the prosecutor at the Zinoviev-Kamenev trial (this trial had 9 other defendants), the first of the Moscow Trials during the Great Purge, lashing its defenseless victims with vituperative rhetoric:[24]
>
> Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with that vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips, putrefying the great ideals of Marxism!... Down with these abject animals! Let's put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let's exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation! Let's push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!
>
>He often punctuated speeches with phrases like "Dogs of the Fascist bourgeoisie," "mad dogs of Trotskyism," "dregs of society," "decayed people," "terrorist thugs and degenerates," and "accursed vermin."[25] This dehumanization aided in what historian Arkady Vaksberg calls "a hitherto unknown type of trial where there was not the slightest need for evidence: what evidence did you need when you were dealing with 'stinking carrion' and 'mad dogs'?"[26]

so what

>He is also attributed as the author of an infamous quote from the Stalin era: "Give me a man and I will find the crime."[27]

that attitude goes back 1000s of years..there's nothing
original in any socialist

>During the trials, Vyshinsky misappropriated the house and money of Leonid Serebryakov (one of the defendants of the infamous Moscow Trials), who was later executed.[28]

so what?

you are so naive about human nature


--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 12:20:17 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

no, you just don't like my responses


--
www.abelard.org

[saracene]

The Nuremburg trials were nothing to be proud of. Criticising them is not a monopoly of nazis. Why don't you try and argue your position instead of trying to smear all dissent as mental disorder like an old fashioned soviet?

[saracene]

Say "fuck off" if you like, that would be just as thoughtful and intelligent, maybe even more so.

[abelard]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 12:42:47 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>

no, you interest me


--
www.abelard.org

[abelard]

On Sun, 8 May 2016 12:39:46 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 8:33:24 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 May 2016 12:23:29 -0700 (PDT), saracene <john...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 7:22:35 PM UTC+1, abelard wrote:
>>
>> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky
>> >>
>> >> can't be bothered
>> >>
>> >> with a name like that, he sounds like one of those inferior slavs
>> >> that national socialists hoped to enslave...
>> >>
>> >In 1936, Vyshinsky achieved international infamy as the prosecutor at the Zinoviev-Kamenev trial (this trial had 9 other defendants), the first of the Moscow Trials during the Great Purge, lashing its defenseless victims with vituperative rhetoric:[24]
>> >
>> > Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with that vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips, putrefying the great ideals of Marxism!... Down with these abject animals! Let's put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let's exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation! Let's push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!
>> >
>> >He often punctuated speeches with phrases like "Dogs of the Fascist bourgeoisie," "mad dogs of Trotskyism," "dregs of society," "decayed people," "terrorist thugs and degenerates," and "accursed vermin."[25] This dehumanization aided in what historian Arkady Vaksberg calls "a hitherto unknown type of trial where there was not the slightest need for evidence: what evidence did you need when you were dealing with 'stinking carrion' and 'mad dogs'?"[26]
>>
>> so what
>>
>> >He is also attributed as the author of an infamous quote from the Stalin era: "Give me a man and I will find the crime."[27]
>>
>> that attitude goes back 1000s of years..there's nothing
>> original in any socialist
>>
>> >During the trials, Vyshinsky misappropriated the house and money of Leonid Serebryakov (one of the defendants of the infamous Moscow Trials), who was later executed.[28]
>>
>> so what?
>>
>> you are so naive about human nature
>>
>The Nuremburg trials were nothing to be proud of.

you view

>Criticising them is not a monopoly of nazis.

so what?

> Why don't you try and argue your position

why should i take 'a position'?

> instead of trying to smear all dissent as mental disorder like an old fashioned soviet?

you are not a dissenter..you're a fashion victim

who believes wearing calvin kline gives you a personality


--
www.abelard.org

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 08 May 2016 04:18:37 -0500) it happened Topaz
<mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in <v21uiblh395ervt30...@4ax.com>:

>Aside from the incessant 'weapons of mass destruction',
>there were 'regime change' (military invasion), 'pre-emptive
>defense' (attacking a country that is not attacking you),
>'critical regions' (countries we want to control), the 'axis
>of evil' (countries we want to attack), 'shock and awe'
>(massive obliteration) and 'the war on terror' (a hold-all
>excuse for projecting American military force anywhere).

Reading the news just yesterday I came across massive graves discovered created by ISIS.
I wondered where poor ISIS buried all those victims of the US and Russian bombings that are stated to be happening day and night.
The media play...

Agent orange, Vietnam, in those days the youth rebelled, and even to the point the helicopters from the US
aircraft carrier were pushed into the water by their own soldiers.
On the 'shiny' surface a company that got a bad review for treating somebodies pets sues for thousands of dollars,
and some worry about killing male chickens while stuffing themselves at Mc Donalds with the other half.
You can make it far in politics as a burger seller, even attack Trump.

There is a big schizophrenic split between old women US lawyer reality and the real world where one ant heap attacks the other for
'resources' how ever imaginative those resources may be these days: 'dollars' (worthless paper) or any other currency.

German wirtschaftswunder maybe makes US jealous... then they only make money by extortion, putting big fines of German companies... Volkswagen,
while they themselves fell for some sales brochure,
Low IQ :-)

US is crumbling.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 May 2016 09:28:47 -0500) it happened Topaz
<mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in <psuribt7aq132ukpi...@4ax.com>:

>
>
> In the good old days a man could afford children and his wife
>didn't have to work. The biggest problem in schools was gum chewing.
>But it was more than that. It was the entire culture. Look in the old
>movies and you can see it. Men were men. Women were women. And
>everybody was White.
>
> Look at America now. There are non-Whites everywhere. Anyone can
>see Black neighborhoods and not safe and not where you want to live.
>America is slowly turning into a third world country.



A Muslim was just elected as mayor of London.
Been there, large part of London is Hindu.

Look at India now, split in Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan.
I wonder how long it wil take before the fire of religious war will flame up there.
Will the UK split?

OK, SOMEBODY or SOME STATE will see an oportunity..
What was 'bama doing there?

[abelard]

play golf


--
www.abelard.org

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 09 May 2016 12:08:59 +0200) it happened abelard
<abel...@abelard.org> wrote in <fdo0jb9o5rnra8bm6...@4ax.com>:

Good shot, 1 iron all across the Atlantic,
new ball would have been cheaper..
Seriously, he must have been doing more than that.
Or his minions.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <ngpj2i$cld$1...@news.datemas.de>,

Jan Panteltje <pNaOnSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Look at India now, split in Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan.
> I wonder how long it wil take before the fire of religious war will flame up
> there.
> Will the UK split?

Oh, sorry. I didn't know you just woke from an eighty year coma. By the way, the
war in Europe is over: Germany lost.

[ESAD]

On 5/9/2016 8:08 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> By the way, the
> war in Europe is over: Germany lost.
>
> --

Again, this time to invading towel heads.

[Topaz]

Auschwitz Museum Director
Reveals 'Gas Chamber' Hoax
By P. Samuel Foner
The Spotlight
Volume XIX, Number 2
5-31-4

In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview, Dr. Franciszek
Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State
Museum admitted on camera that 'Krema 1,' the alleged 'homicidal gas
chamber' shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at
the Auschwitz main camp, was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the
Soviet Union -apparently on the direct orders of Josef Stalin.

What Piper said - in effect and on camera - was that the explosive
1988 Leuchter Report was correct: no homicidal gassings took place in
the buildings designated as 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz.

With this admission by none other than the respected head of the
Auschwitz State Museum, one of the most sacred 'facts' of history has
been destroyed. This 'gas chamber' is the major historical 'fact' on
which much of the foreign and domestic policies of all Western nations
since WWII are based.

It is the basis for the $100+ billion in foreign aid the United States
has poured into the state of Israel since its inception in 1948 -
amounting to $16,500 for every man, woman and child in the Jewish
state and billions more paid by Germany in 'reparations' - not to
mention the constructing of Israel's national telephone, electrical
and rail systems...all gifts of the German people. It is the basis for
the $10 billion 'loan' (read 'gift') made to Israel for housing its
immigrants in the occupied territories...while Americans sleep on the
streets and businesses are bankrupted by the thousands. (Note - As of
2004, not a single 'loan' of US tax money made to the state of Israel
by Washington has ever been paid back. -ed)

Germany is paying 'reparations' - the United States is making
major contributions - to atone for the 'gassings at Auschwitz' and
elsewhere. If the 'homicidal gas chambers' were postwar creations of
the Soviets, in which no one was gassed regardless of race, creed,
color or country of national origin, then these 'reparations' were
unnecessary, and were based on fraud.

The videotape on which Dr. Piper makes his revelations was made in
mid-1992 by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole and follows 12
years of intensive investigation by dozens of historians, journalists
and scientists who have tried to get to the bottom of what really
happened at Auschwitz.

Like most Americans, since his youth, Cole had been instructed in the
'irrefutable fact' that mass homicidal gassings had taken place at
Auschwitz. The number of those executed - also declared irrefutable -
was 4.1 million.

Then came the Leuchter Report in 1988 which was followed with an
official 're-evaluation' of the total deaths at Auschwitz (down to 1.1
million). As a budding historian - and a Jew - Cole was intrigued.

Previous to 1992, anyone who publicly doubted or questioned the
official 4.1 millon 'gassing' deaths at Auschwitz was labeled an anti-
semite, neo-nazi skinhead at the very least. Quietly, because of
revisionist findings, the official figure was lowered to 1.1 million.
No mention was made of the missing 3 million.

The Cole videotape interview proves that the people who run the
Auschwitz State Museum had made a practice of fabricating 'proofs' of
homicidal gassings. Keep in mind that over the years millions of
tourists have been told that 'Krema 1' is in its original state, while
officials knew that 'original state' is a lie.

The political, religious, financial and historical ramifications of
this proof of no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz cannot be
measured. Coupled with the Leuchter Report, the Cole interview with
Dr. Piper on videotape proves that what Western governments have
taught about the Auschwitz gas chamber since WWII is a lie. It proves
that what televangelists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have
been telling their flocks is simply not true.

No one, regardless of race, creed, color or country of national origin
was gassed to death in any building so designated at Auschwitz. And
without 'homicidal gas chambers' at Auschwitz, where is the reasoning
for the special treatment of the state of Israel?

Note - This is excerpted from the orginal, much longer article by P.
Samuel Foner.



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

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

[Topaz]

On Sun, 08 May 2016 07:01:26 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <eq3uibh1clof7l3eo...@4ax.com>,
> Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Senator McCarthy
>
>Now there is a name held in high repute.

"With the opening of the KGB archives and the release
of the VENONA intercepts - decoded Soviet KGB and GRU
traffic - it has been proved that McCarthy was
absolutely right about the extensive Soviet penetration
of the U.S. government in all the most sensitive
sections and its danger to America. According to the
KGB archives the NKVD had 221 agents in the Roosevelt
administration in April 1941 and the Soviet military
GRU probably had a like number. He was proved right
that the Communist Party, U.S.A., was an arm of the
Soviet intelligence apparatus and the Soviet Union
considered the US as their "main enemy." His liberal
critics in academe and the mainstream media, who denied
there was Communist subversion and made excuses for it,
were proved absolutely wrong! This should have
discredited the liberal ideology and those who mouthed
it. Because the left had no answer or effective reply
to the challenge McCarthy posed, they engaged in
personal destruction - they demonized McCarthy because
he was truth."

<http://history.freeyellow.com/mccarthy.htm>
<http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/mccarthy.html>

[Topaz]

By Robert Faurisson

In what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers?
By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of
extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes
his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the
gas chambers. [2] He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews,
but ... by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before
the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that!
Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from
among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire
lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In
1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was
still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term
Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes
that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of
electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.
The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. [3] The lie that Jews
were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was
spread by the Poles. [4] The electrocution lie was spread by the
Soviets. [5]

The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war
propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a
version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at
Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one
for babies. He writes: [6]

Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames.
They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered
its load-little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it-saw it with my own
eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could
not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.)
A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where
the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." Wiesel's column was
led by the Germans to within "three steps" of the ditch, then to "two
steps." "Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left
and made to go into a barracks."

An exceptional witness himself, Wiesel assures us of his having met
other exceptional witnesses. Regarding Babi Yar, a place in Ukraine
where the Germans executed Soviet citizens, among them Jews, Wiesel
wrote: [7]

Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground
never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood
spurted from it.

These words did not slip from their author in a moment of frenzy:
first, he wrote them, then some unspecified number of times (but at
least once) he had to reread them in the proofs; finally, his words
were translated into various languages, as is everything this author
writes.

That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a
miracle. He says that: [8]

In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was
always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?
In 1954 French scholar Germaine Tillion analyzed the "gratuitous lie"
with regard to the German concentration camps. She wrote: [9]
Those persons [who gratuitously lie] are, to tell the truth, much more
numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the
concentration camp world-well designed, alas, to stimulate
sado-masochistic imaginings-offered them an exceptional field of
action. We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half
swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation; we
have known others of them-authentic deportees-whose sick minds strove
to go even beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people
said had happened to them. There have been publishers to print some of
their imaginings, and more or less official compilations to use them,
but publishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, since the
most elementary inquiry would have been enough to reveal the
imposture.

Tillion lacked the courage to give examples and names. But that is
usually the case. People agree that there are false gas chambers that
tourists and pilgrims are encouraged to visit, but they do not tell us
where. They agree that there are false "eyewitnesses," but in general
they name only Martin Gray, the well-known swindler, at whose request
Max Gallo, with full knowledge of what he was doing, fabricated the
bestseller For Those I Loved.

Jean-François Steiner is sometimes named as well. His bestselling
novel Treblinka (1966) was presented as a work of which the accuracy
of every detail was guaranteed by oral or written testimony. In
reality it was a fabrication attributable, at least in part, to the
novelist Gilles Perrault. [10] Marek Halter, for his part, published
his La Mémoire d'Abraham in 1983; as he often does on radio, he talked
there about his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto. However, if we are
to believe an article by Nicolas Beau that is quite favorable to
Halter, [11] little Marek, about three years old, and his mother left
Warsaw not in 1941 but in October of 1939, before the establishment of
the ghetto there by the Germans. Halter's book is supposed to have
been actually written by a ghost writer, Jean-Noël Gurgan.
Filip Müller is the author of Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the
Gas Chambers, [12] which won the 1980 prize of the International
League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). This nauseous
best-seller is actually the work of a German ghost writer, Helmut
Freitag, who did not hesitate to engage in plagiarism. [13] The source
of the plagiarism is Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account, another
best-seller made up out of whole cloth and attributed to Miklos
Nyiszli. [14]

Thus a whole series of works presented as authentic documents turns
out to be merely compilations attributable to various ghost writers:
Max Gallo, Gilles Perrault, Jean-Noël Gurgan (?), and Helmut Freitag,
among others.

We would like to know what Germaine Tillion thinks about Elie Wiesel
today. With him the lie is certainly not gratuitous. Wiesel claims to
be full of love for humanity. However, he does not refrain from an
appeal to hatred. In his opinion: [15]

Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of
hate-healthy, virile hate-for what the German personifies and for what
persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the
dead.

At the beginning of 1986, 83 deputies of the German Bundestag took the
initiative of proposing Wiesel for the Nobel Peace Prize. This would
be, they said, "a great encouragement to all who are active in the
process of reconciliation." [16] That is what might be called "going
from National Socialism to national masochism."

Jimmy Carter needed a historian to preside over the President's
Commission on the Holocaust. As Dr. Arthur Butz said so well, he chose
not a historian but a "histrion": Elie Wiesel. Even the newspaper Le
Monde, in the article mentioned above, was obliged to refer to the
histrionic trait that certain persons deplore in Wiesel:
Naturally, even among those who approve of the struggle of this
American Jewish writer, who was discovered by the Catholic François
Mauriac, some reproach him for having too much of a tendency to change
the Jewish sadness into "morbidity" or to become the high priest of a
"planned management of the Holocaust."

As Jewish writer Leon A. Jick has written: "The devastating barb,
'There is no business like SHOAH-business' is, sad to say, a
recognizable truth." [17]

Elie Wiesel issues alarmed and inflammatory appeals against
Revisionist authors. He senses that things are getting out of hand. It
is going to become more and more difficult for him to maintain the mad
belief that the Jews were exterminated or were subjected to a policy
of extermination, especially in so-called gas chambers. Serge
Klarsfeld has admitted that real proofs of the existence of the gas
chambers have still not yet been published. He promises proofs. [18]
On the scholarly plane, the gas chamber myth is finished. To tell the
truth, that myth breathed its last breath several years ago at the
Sorbonne colloquium in Paris (June 29-July 2, 1982), at which Raymond
Aron and François Furet presided. What remains is to make this news
known to the general public. However, for Elie Wiesel it is of the
highest importance to conceal that news. Thus all the fuss in the
media, which is going to increase: the more the journalists talk, the
more the historians keep quiet.

But there are historians who dare to raise their voices against the
lies and the hatred. That is the case with Michel de Boüard, wartime
member of the Resistance, deportee to Mauthausen, member of the
Committee for the History of the Second World War from 1945 to 1981,
and a member of the Institut de France. In a poignant interview in
1986, he courageously acknowledged that in 1954 he had vouched for the
existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen where, it finally turns out,
there never was one. [19]

The respect owed to the sufferings of all the victims of the Second
World War, and, in particular, to the sufferings of the deportees,
demands on the part of historians a return to the proven and
time-honored methods of historical criticism.

Summary

Elie Wiesel passes for one of the most celebrated eyewitnesses to the
alleged Holocaust. Yet in his supposedly autobiographical book Night,
he makes no mention of gas chambers. He claims instead to have
witnessed Jews being burned alive, a story now dismissed by all
historians. Wiesel gives credence to the most absurd stories of other
"eyewitnesses." He spreads fantastic tales of 10,000 persons sent to
their deaths each day in Buchenwald.

When Elie Wiesel and his father, as Auschwitz prisoners, had the
choice of either leaving with their retreating German "executioners,"
or remaining behind in the camp to await the Soviet "liberators," the
two decided to leave with their German captors.

It is time, in the name of truth and out of respect for the genuine
sufferings of the victims of the Second World War, that historians
return to the proven methods of historical criticism, and that the
testimony of the Holocaust "eyewitnesses" be subjected to rigorous
scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 08 May 2016 07:00:25 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>Does anyone claim the USSR was morally superior to NSDAP Germany?

Maybe some hopeless fools.

Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:

"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.

In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.

Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.

To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."

[Topaz]

Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but
to build a new social state with the highest level of culture. Each
year of war keeps me from this work."

By Mark Weber

Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
well known.[1]

Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.

Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.

This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War.

Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.

Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.

On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...

... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.

In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'

Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.

The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.

Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe...

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.

Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world.

These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.

On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt

1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.

2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.

3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.

4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:

A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.

The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'

On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:

The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so...

While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw...

On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."

The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]

The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House

In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]

In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:

Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]

"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]

On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]

But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]

Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]

In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]

On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.

All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.

On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.

Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.

The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.

I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.

New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.

President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.

I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.

I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.

Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.

On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:

It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.

What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.

In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.

Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.

On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.

President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]

Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:

The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.

Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.

If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]

In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.

Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]

Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]

In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:

The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]

Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]

Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.

Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]

Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.

In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]

We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.

Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.

The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?

Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.

Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.

Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.

Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.

In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.

And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.

Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.

President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]

The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:

President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.

Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]

One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:

The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.

Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.

He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]

Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.


It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.


Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.

Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.

[Topaz]

On Mon, 09 May 2016 07:08:57 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Germany lost.


Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
they were outnumbered. Compare the size of Germany to the size of the
Jewish controlled countries, the USA and the USSR. Hitler made Germany
great. Of course the Jew parasites couldn't stand that. Unfortunately
the bad side won the war.

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, January 21, 1945
The Creators of the World's Misfortunes
by Joseph Goebbels

One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind
the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural
forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and
keep humanity in the dark. It is so to speak the mortar that holds the
enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class,
ideology and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish
roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same
fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the
nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public
opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is
plain to see that it may never be named in newspapers, speeches and
radio broadcasts. There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes
anti-Semitism - or in plain English, public education about the Jewish
Question - by death. The expert in these matters is in no way
surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New
Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid
throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its
goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the
nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a
discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty.

It is little different in the plutocratic nations. There the struggle
against the impudent usurpation of the Jewish race is not punished by
the executioner, rather by death through economic and social boycott
and by intellectual terror. This has the same effect in the end.
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were made by the Jewry. They enjoy its
full support and reward it with their full protection. They present
themselves in their speeches as upright men of civil courage, yet one
never hears even a word against the Jews, even though there is growing
hatred among their people as a result of this war, a hatred that is
fully justified. Jewry is a tabu theme in the enemy countries. It
stands outside every legal boundary and thus becomes the tyrant of its
host peoples. While enemy soldiers fight, bleed and die at the front,
the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and
black markets. If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the
Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press,
chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into
public contempt. Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They
want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world: to give Jewry
absolute power and freedom from prosecution. He who objects or even
debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe
through his neck. There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the
epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the
nations that deserve freedom.

That is all long behind us. Yet it still threatens us in the distance.
We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the
Reich, but they have not given up. They did not rest until they had
mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer
conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every
Russian, English and American soldier is a mercenary of this world
conspiracy of a parasitic race. Given the current state of the war,
who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front
for the national interests of their countries! The nations want a
decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of
the war would mean the dawning knowledge of humanity of the unhealthy
role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out
this war. They fear being unmasked, which has in fact become
unavoidable and must inevitably come, just as the day follows the
night. That explains their raging bursts of hatred against us, which
are only the result of their fear and their feelings of inferiority.
They are too eager, and that makes them suspicious. International
Jewry will not succeed in turning this war to its advantage. Things
are already too far along. The hour will come in which all the peoples
of the earth will awake, and the Jews will be the victims. Here too
things can only go so far.

It is an old, often-used method of International Jewry to discredit
education and knowledge about its corrupting nature and drives,
thereby depending on the weaknesses of those people who easily confuse
cause with effect. The Jews are also masters at manipulating public
opinion, which they dominate through their network of news agencies
and press concerns that reaches throughout the world. The pitiful
illusion of a free press is one of the methods they use to stupefy the
publics of enemy lands. If the enemy press is as free as it pretends
to be, let it take an open position, for or against, on the Jewish
Question. It will not do that because it cannot and may not do so. The
Jews love to mock and criticize everything except themselves, although
everyone knows that they are most in need of public criticism. This is
where the so-called freedom of the press in enemy countries ends.
Newspapers, parliaments, statesmen and church leaders must be silent
here. Crimes and vices, filth and corruption are covered by the
blanket of love. The Jews have total control of public opinion in
enemy countries, and he who has that is also master of all of public
life. Only the nations that have to accept such a condition are to be
pitied. The Jews mislead them into believing that the German nation is
backward. Our alleged backwardness is actually proof of our progress.
We have recognized the Jews as a national and international danger,
and from this knowledge have drawn compelling conclusions. This German
knowledge will become the knowledge of he world at the end of this
war. We think it our primary duty to do everything in our power to
make that happen.

Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull
and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the
incarnation of that destructive force that in these terrible years has
guided the enemy war leadership in a fight against all that we see as
noble, beautiful and worth keeping. For that reason alone the Jews
hate it. They despite our culture and learning, which they perceive as
towering over their nomadic worldview. They fear our economic and
social standards, which leave no room for their parasitic drives, They
are the enemy of our domestic order, which has excluded their
anarchistic tendencies. Germany is the first nation in the world that
is entirely free of the Jews. That is the prime cause of its political
and economic balance. Since their expulsion from the German national
body has made it impossible for them to shake this balance from
within, they lead the nations they have deceived in battle against us
from without. It is fine with them, in fact it is part of their plan,
that Europe in the process will lose a large part of its cultural
values. The Jews had no part in their creation. They do not understand
them. A deep racial instinct tells them that since these heights of
human creative activity are forever out of their reach, they must
attack them today with hatred. The day is not distant when the nations
of Europe, yes, even those of the whole world, will shout: The Jews
are guilty for all our misfortunes! They must be called to account,
and soon and thoroughly!
International Jewry is ready with its alibi. Just as during the great
reckoning in Germany, they will attempt to look innocent and say that
one needs a scapegoat, and they are it. But that will no longer help
them, just as it did not help them during the National Socialist
revolution, The proof of their historical guilt, in details large and
small, is so plain that they can no longer be denied even with the
most clever lies and hypocrisy.

Who is it that drives the Russians, the English and the Americans into
battle and sacrifices huge numbers of human lives in a hopeless
struggle against the German people? The Jews! Their newspapers and
radio broadcasts spread the songs of war while the nations they have
deceived are led to the slaughter. Who is it that invents new plans of
hatred and destruction against us every day, making this war into a
dreadful case of self-mutilation and self-destruction of European life
and its economy, education and culture? The Jews! Who devised the
unnatural marriage between England and the USA on one side and
Bolshevism on the other, building it up and jealously ensuring its
continuance? Who covers the most perverse political situations with
cynical hypocrisy from a trembling fear that a new way could lead the
nations to realize the true causes of this terrible human catastrophe?
The Jews, only the Jews! They are named Morgenthau and Lehmann and
stand behind Roosevelt as a so-called brain trust. They are named
Mechett and Sasoon and serve as Churchill's money bags and order
givers. They are named Kaganovitsch and Ehrenburg and are Stalin's
pacesetters and intellectual spokesmen. Wherever you look, you see
Jews. They march as political commisars behind the Red army and
organize murder and terror in the areas conquered by the Soviets. They
sit behind the lines in Paris and Brussels, Rome and Athens, and
fashion their reins from the skin of the unhappy nations that have
fallen under their power.

That is the truth. It can no longer be denied, particularly since in
their drunken joy of power and victory the Jews have forgotten their
ordinarily so carefully maintained reserve and now stand in the
spotlight of public opinion. They no longer bother, apparently
believing that it is no longer necessary, that their hour has come.
And this is their mistake, which they always make when think
themselves near their great goal of anonymous world domination.
Thoughout the history of the nations, whenever this tragic situation
developed, a good providence saw to it that the Jews themselves became
the grave diggers of their own hopes. They did not destroy the healthy
peoples, rather the sting of their parasitic effects brought the
realization of the looming danger to the forefront and led to the
greatest sacrifices to overcome it. At a certain point, they become
that power that always wants evil but creates good. It will be that
way this time too.

The fact that the German nation was the first on earth to recognize
this danger and expel it from its organism is proof of its healthy
instincts. It therefore became the leader of a world struggle whose
results will determine of fate and the future of International Jewry.
We view with complete calm the wild Old Testament tirades of hatred
and revenge of Jews throughout the world against us. They are only
proof that we are on the right path. They cannot unsettle us. We gaze
on them with sovereign contempt and remember that these outbursts of
hate and revenge were everyday events for us in Germany until that
fateful day for International Jewry, 30 January 1933, when the world
revolution against the Jews that threateend not only Germany, but all
the other nations, began.
It will not cease before it has reached its goal. The truth can not be
stopped by lies or force. It will get through. The Jews will meet
their Cannae at the end of this war. Not Europe, rather they will
lose. They may laugh at this prophecy today, but they have laughed so
often in the past, and almost as often they stopped laughing sooner or
later. Not only do we know precisely what we want, we also know
precisely what we do not want. The deceived nations of he Earth may
still lack the knowledge they need, but we will bring it to them. How
will the Jews stop that in the long run? They believe their power
rests on sure foundations, but it stands on feet of clay. One hard
blow and it will collapse, burying the creators of the misfortunes of
the world in its ruins.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 08 May 2016 06:55:16 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>The US has always maintained the right of neutrals to use international waters
>for commercial shipping since the beginning of the republic when the
>Constitution and its marines challenged pirates off the shores of Tripoli. Until
>Germany declared war on the US, the US Navy did not escort merchant ships in UK
>territorial waters, nor did it pursue the Germany Navy, such as the Bismarck,

According to your media maybe. Your media is Jewish.

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

[Topaz]

On Sun, 08 May 2016 06:32:07 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The Japanese army like the German government had no conception of what the US
>was capable of, and neither chose wisely.
>
>The Japanese navy was the only one that realised what they were facing and
>predicted they could only maintain superiority for a year. Actually they lost
>superiority in only half a year at Midway.
>

The Jews control your media and your mind. Your "history" is
nothing but Jewish propaganda.

It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they
were not liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the
Jews controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from
Mein Kampf:

"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The
best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his character and
strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility which his name
arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.

"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be
reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his
newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells
the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some
greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate
falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and
duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.

"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of honor
which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is nearest
to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.

"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does
not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no
account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted,
slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this
mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all
Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on
the part of this race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.

"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of
our members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible."

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.

"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which
I had formerly looked at in a different light."

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

[Siri Cruise]

In article <6c12jb16m4t8edc89...@4ax.com>,

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

> It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they
> were not liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the
> Jews controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from
> Mein Kampf:
>
> "The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
> Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The

So how did his ghost written pile of crap get to the public without being
published by the media controlled by Jews?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <c412jbho2ibh6pmu4...@4ax.com>,

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

> According to your media maybe. Your media is Jewish.

And you change the subject.

Quelle surprize.

You can't find one case of the US Navy attacking any German navy ship in
international waters which had not first attacked or enterred a US Navy security
zone before 8 December 1941? Not one?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <f112jb93pih7e2k8u...@4ax.com>,

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

> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
> they were outnumbered. Compare the size of Germany to the size of the

Between Spring 1940 and Summer 1941, the only important country at war with
Germany was UK. Germany chose to attack the USSR; Germany started the part of
the war. And Winter 1941 Germany chose to attack the US; Germany declared war
without provocation. Not only was NSDAP Germany wrong, they were stupid.

By 1942 Hitler was dying of heart disease and his Parkinson was becoming
noticeable. It was more important to him to murder as many innocent people as
possible than to win the war. Hence he made stupid decision after stupid
decision just to kill more innocents.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <7t02jbloc20gmt042...@4ax.com>,

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

> Hitler said on 19 July 1940: "My intention was never to wage war, but

How dare everyone else resist being slaves, murderred, and impoverished, forcing
NSDAP Germany to fight wars in order to oppress them.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <jk02jb19ana7nk6g8...@4ax.com>,

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

> >Does anyone claim the USSR was morally superior to NSDAP Germany?
>
> Maybe some hopeless fools.

Hello, hopeless fool.