US Fascism is Socialism

[Thomas Heger]

Hi

Some Fascistic symbols have roots in America, like the swastica and the
'erected arm salute'.

We find these symbols in the salute of the boy scouts or in public
school flag salutes.

The swastica we find - interesting enough- on ruble notes and Army batches.

Interesting site:
http://rexcurry.net/theosophy-madame-blavatsky-theosophical-society.html

http://rexcurry.net/police-state.html
POLICE STATE: THE USA'S SOCIALIST POLICE STATE

quote

"The USA has many types of socialism including the social security scam
and its Nazi numbering, and socialist schools (government schools), and
assembly-line searches with demands for 'papers' (identification etc.,)
and other proof of a police-state.

There are also ways in which the USA is less free, and is more
socialistic than most other countries. The main example is the pledge of
allegiance. All other countries shun it. No other country on earth
expects children to slavishly chant a socialist's pledge in such a
bizarre ritual, in military formation, and by law in socialist schools
every day upon the ring of a government bell, like Pavlov's lapdogs of
the state.

Wilhelm von Humboldt: "If it were possible to make an accurate
calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those
which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed
that of the latter."

On the left are more details of the ways the USA is a police state:"


TH

[MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE]

When the TRUTH becomes a Liability ALL PEOPLE become the Enemy.

LIBs, once again found the most expedient way to achieve
both Convenience *and* Death.


http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/01/30/no_room_for_a
llen_west_or_you_in_romneys_gop

No Room for You in Romney’s GOP

Get ready for the all new GOP, under the lead of Mitt Romney.

It’s a GOP where the Tea Party won’t be welcome, where the federal
government will continue to bailout out banks and unions and everyone
who’s anyone will continue to make money- except of course you and me.

We’ll just continue to get stuck with the 100 year mortgage payment,
as the GOP continues to be the “tax collector for the welfare state,”
in the WSJ’s apt phrase.




STATISM affords the Certainty of Stagnation,
because people without HOPE are easier to Control.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/160688.jpg Why so Serious?

hdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd-
dddyoo+++++++++++++++++++++ooossssooo+//++/+++++++++++++++++++oooooosmddd-
dhd/...........-.-..-/oydmNMMMMMMMMMMNNdhyo+:-...................---:mddd-
ddh:............-+sdNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmdyo:................-.:ddhd-
dhd:........-/sdNMMMMMMMNNNmhhhhhddNMNMMNMMMMMMMMMho:...............-ydhd-
dhd:....../hNMMNs/:::---...........-..-..--/+sydNMMMNd/...-..........ohhd-
dhd-.....:mMMd/-..``````````````````````.`````..+symMMMd/............ohdd-
ddd-..../mNMd-``````````````````````````.`````````.+MMMMN+...........ohhd-
dhd-...:NMNm+.````````````````````````````````````.:mMMMMN/..........odhh-
dhd-...hNMNs.``````````````````````````````````````.:yNMMMs..........ohhh-
ddd-.`.NNNs-`````````````````````````````````````````.:hMMh..........odhh-
ddh..`.NMo.`````----::/++::..``````````.----:--:-.```..:mMo..........odhd-
hdh.:-.dN-..-/ydmmmmmmmNNNNmdo.`````./ymNmNmmmmNNmdy+:..mM/..........+dhd-
ddy-oo/+d-`-omMMMMmydmddshdMMd-`````.sMMhodddmdNMMMMNo-`ds:+s`.......+ddd-
hds...-+y-.-odMMMMmdddmmmmNms:.``````:ymmmmmmNNMMMdhy:``+/-.-``......+dhd-
ddo...`.+-`../ydddhdddhyho+-```````````-++/+soo+o+:--.``:.`````......oddd-
ddo....`.-`````.----:-.`..```````````````````````````````````........ohhd-
hdo....`.-.````````````````````````````````````````````.````.........ohhh-
hh+......-.`````````````.-::/:.`.`.:///:`````````....`..````.........ohhd-
hh+.......`.:+:--.`.````.:++/+osss++++/:`````..+/oyyo.`````..........oddd-
dh+..........ommmss+--....`.....-...........-/sdmNh+:..```...........sdhd-
dh/..........:hNNdNmhhysyyhhhhyyyyhhhhyhyyyhdmNmss-`````.............ydhh-
dh/.........../ys/ssssyhhdddhyyyyyyydddhhsoosso/--.````.............-ydhh-
dh/............o+-...-:/++ossyyyyhyssoo+//:://:::.`````.............-ddhd-
dd/.........-+/sNho:.....://++/++++//:.....`.:os..````..............-ddhd-
dh/.......:smh.-hMMms-``````.......```````.-odNo:ms:..`.............-ddhd-
dd+.--:/shNMN/...+hmNmyo:-..```````..--:/ohNNd+-.mMNds+/:--.........-mdhd-
ddshdmNMMMMMm:.....-+hmNNNdhsss+ossyhddNNNmy/--..oMMMMMMNNmdhso/::--:mdhd-
dmyNMMMMMMMMMo......`.-/ymNMMMMMMMMMMMNmy/-.....:sMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNmdmdhd-
dmhMMMMMMMMMMm-...```....-+ydNMMMMNNds/-...```..-hMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNddd.
ddhmNNNNNNNNNNs-------------+ymmmdo/:--....----::mNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNmddd.
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddhhddhhhhhhhdddddddddddddddddddddddddddhd`
:::::////:::://///:/:://+/////////:////://///:::/::::///:::::::::::-----.
/dyyds -hhyyho` -yhyhd/ om` -md` -N- `N/ odyhd+ .Nmy `mmh
yNo///`.No .Ns.No -: sN` `mydy :M: `M+ mdo:/: .MyM.+Nhd
`/oydm-:M: mh-M/ `` oN` yN/+M+ :M: `M+ ./oymd..M/mymsyd
`dh:-+N/ ym+-:ym- sm+/+my oN`+No++sN-:Mo///-`M+.my::sN-.M/+MM.yd
`:+o+. -+o+:` `/+/. -/`/: /:`+++++: +. `/oo/. `+.`+/ :/

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

The Boy Scouts have never used a stiff-arm salute. We used a
military-style hand-to-head salute with three fingers extended, thumb
and pinkie folded inward.
Another for specific purposes was arm held vertical right beside the
body woth the same 3-finger salute.

Please use reliable sources next time.

BTW- Blavatsky was a major-league fraud.

--
"The graveyards are full of indispensible men."--

Charles deGaulle

[joeturn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7YiKnA4tNE

[joeturn]

SS double agent was not unlike will rogers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stephenson_Smyth_Baden-Powell

[Thomas Heger]

I think, Americans should take special care about the Nazis.
I'm German and I live in Berlin. We had Nazis here and at the end this
city looked like a place on the moon.

We had also communism here and it takes me only a few steps to enter the
former communist area. The 'German Democratic Republic' was in a way the
little USSR and the 'Statssicherheit' seemed like a little SS.
Stasi means 'State security' or could be translated into US-Double-speak
'Department of Homeland Security', which is exactly like a modern copy
of the SS.
The boy scouts seem to try to become a modern version of the Hitler-Youth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaX0E5xcXGw&feature=related

For me it very hard to believe, the US allows such misuse of kids.

Anyhow: the Nazis are not very thankful and usually they cheat their
host. So: be warned!

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWFH66qZyUA&feature=player_embedded

REALLY!

It is so SICK!!!

And don't think, these people make jokes! As far as I can see it, the
plans are made generations ago. Many historical events are 'test-runs'
and the final fight will be in the states.

But the 'bad guys' have not won. It is easy to defeat them. Only it
takes some efforts:

First thing would be, to tell those Nazi-kids, to 'not obey' - or at
least defend their countrymen. Same with the armed forces.

Once the soldiers know, they destroy their country, if they mistreat a
countrymen, they could possibly be convinced to defend their country
instead or destroying it.

And if enough are convinced, the fight could be won without a shot.

TH

[MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE]

Thomas Heger
>...to 'not obey'



http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/DISOBEY_WEB.jpg

DISOBEY or DIE.

[Topaz]

WHAT IS FASCISM?

By James Miller, PhD

Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of
this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social
ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but
basically they all come down to the following.

Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a
central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor
activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done
for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its
people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business
activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a
whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which
determines everything under Fascism.

In other words, the government asks, "Is XYZ Enterprises good for our
nation and our people?" If yes, it's approved. If no, it's not
approved. When they ask, "Is it good?", they mean, "Is XYZ Enterprises
good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a
product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people
technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???" For
example, a pornography company would not be allowed because
pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women
particularly. Also, "free" trade agreements (such as what the U.S. has
with China) would never be allowed because such trade agreements
result in companies sending jobs overseas (where labor is dirt cheap).
Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation's labor class.
This is entirely unnacceptable and thus not allowed under a Fascist
economic model.

Fascism is based on free enterprise - but with constraints (the
primary constraint being, "Is the particular economic activity in
question good for our nation?"). Also, a businessman can become
wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to
this (this is in stark contrast to Communism). Fascism also encourages
private ownership of property (again, in stark contrast to Communism
where private property is not allowed).

In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, "Go ahead and
start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don't
produce any products or services which damage our nation and our
nation's people... and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay
them a living wage. If you don't do these things, we'll shut you
down."

The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a
cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government
plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music,
education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things
clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor,
and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts
society.

A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the
enviroment as Fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and
thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental view with that of
Capitalism which too often takes the short term view and foolishly
believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit.

Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn't like things, he/she can leave
the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don't like
things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no
option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a
re-education camp where you'll be brainwashed to accept the Communist
system. And if you still resist, you'll probably be killed. Again,
there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.

Lastly, Fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the
carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and
well read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a
career but only if a career won't interfere with her family's needs;
family comes first, always. Women are encouraged to be strong yet
feminine.

In Germany, the NSDAP essentially followed the above described Fascist
system.

###


For SERIOUS conservative writing, please visit my website:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com





http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

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

[joeturn]

> TH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Nazis are here now Thomas. They run the United States since
operation paperclip!

http://vimeo.com/dallasgoldbug/videos/sort:date

http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/48112219

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

As one who earned the rank of Eagle Scout many years ago, I was deeply
insulted by your clearly hateful post.

You have no understanding of the underpinnings and workings of the Boy
Scouts of America.

Please RESEARCH before babbling about things of which you have no
knowledge or understanding.

[joeturn]

On Jan 31, 10:02 am, joeturn <joeturn2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Paragraph you keep destoying the evidence Will Rogers was also a
pedophile that enjoyed young boys,he followed Hitlers lead and brought
the Hitler Youth groups to America.I just wonder if Will Rogers was a
one of the project paper clips Nazis

[Thomas Heger]

Am 31.01.2012 23:02, schrieb Topaz:
>
> WHAT IS FASCISM?
>
> By James Miller, PhD
>
> Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of
> this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social
> ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but
> basically they all come down to the following.
>
> Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a
> central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor
> activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done

> for the sole purpose of safeguarding& advancing the nation and its

> people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business
> activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a
> whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which
> determines everything under Fascism.

I agree. Fascism is actually communism.
Or: communism is fascism.
Mussolini defined fascism as corporations ruling a police state.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.02.2012 01:12, schrieb Padraigh ProAmerica:
> As one who earned the rank of Eagle Scout many years ago, I was deeply
> insulted by your clearly hateful post.
>
> You have no understanding of the underpinnings and workings of the Boy
> Scouts of America.
>
> Please RESEARCH before babbling about things of which you have no
> knowledge or understanding.
>

Sorry, but it certainly was not my intention to insult the boy scouts.

The subject I was looking at are certain symbols and from where they came.

The National Sozialist Workers Party of Germany (NSDAP) in short NAZIs
used certain symbols and promoted an ideology, that was extremely
harmful to our society (and of course to the rest of the world).

So I try to find out, from where these Nazis came and what their
objectives were/are.

Most people think, Germans are Nazis. But the fact is, that Nazis
destroyed Germany and intentionally so. So the question remains, who
these people are and what they want.

I personally think, that Naziism and Fascism is more or less an
universal problem, but we have a few hotspots. One is England and one is
Italy. Germany was one of course, but now we don't like them any more.

The USA has also a long history of Nazi-related activities. And here
comes the research about symbols.

There are e.g. the 'Silver Shirts', what are kind of US-Nazis and these
had a large red 'L' on their flags and shirts, supposedly meaning
'Leader' (or 'Fuehrer' in German).

The Boy Scouts are in German 'Pfadfinder' and a usual thing, that young
boys are engaged with.

But there is a fine line between kids entertainment and fascistic youth
training for potential wars to come. The latter was, what we in Germany
called 'Hitler Youth'.

Same with swasticas and erected arm salute. These are symbols, not
really typical German, but were promoted by the Nazis.

So, if these symbols actually originated in the states, than certainly
the source is still there. But that is, what I don't know, but try to
find out.


TH

[Topaz]

WHAT IS FASCISM?

By James Miller, PhD

Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of
this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social
ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but
basically they all come down to the following.

Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a
central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor
activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done

for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its

people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business
activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a
whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which
determines everything under Fascism.

[BDK]

In article <9orllk...@mid.individual.net>, ttt...@web.de says...

You don't even have the capacity to understand the difference between
fascism and communism. At this point, it's time to see s professional
and get on some meds, then maybe you'll understand how funny claiming
that fascism and communism are the same is.

--
Head FUD-Master Blaster.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

WHat the hell are you babbling about?

Will Rogers was opopular in the 1920's and early 1930's, and died in a
plane crash in Alaska.

Tje Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1911.

Wil Rogers was a humorist who had nothing tom do with Nazi Germany.

You need help. Let your family do an intervention before you hurt
yourself.

[MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE]

Topaz

> WHAT IS FASCISM?
>
> By James Miller, PhD
>

> Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. ...



That's like saying Mitt Romney is an 'interesting' candidate...
Even MAX HEADROOM would be a better candidate than
Romney McDonald and his McFascism.


The Difference?

MAX is FUNNIER and lacking arms
cannot gun you down or set fire to your children.


http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/01/mitt-romney-the-max-headroom-
candidate.html
MITT ROMNEY: The MAX HEADROOM candidate



---
DOING THE SAME THING,
EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT: OBAMA/2012

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/160688.jpg
What do you mean WE Paleface?

[Thomas Heger]

Now you compare this with a typical program of any former eastern block
communist party.

I said: ok, I agree that fascism is communism (possibly only in this
aspect of economy).
Of course there are differences, mainly the colours differ. RED is the
colour of communism and brown that of fascism. Actually BLACK is used
more often. E.g. the SS uniforms were black.

Fascism is usually vicious and brutal, but you'd be surprised, how many
people got killed by their liberators, as the communists like to call
themselves.

So there is one difference left and that is the role of the capitalists.
In communism everything is owned by the state. In capitalism the state
is owned by the corporations and that by the capitalists.

To the average person the difference is insignificant, only the colours
are somehow different and in communism the rules are a little more
strict. But fascism compensates this with excessive violence.

TH

[Topaz]

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not have been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the suppression
of the supranational Press and the definite abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favorable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."

[Topaz]

The term "Corporatism" derives from Catholic doctrine and has nothing
to do with corporations or capitalism.

Corporatism was derived as a substitute for Marxism, a third way, so
to speak. Corporatists are hardly pro-big-business and anti-labor.
Chas

Of course Mussolini did not mean that corporations as in the USA
should have more power or profits.

"Corporativism wants each individual to see his or her own specific
place in the organic order as a whole. Only through this view can we
at last lay the clashes between classes aside and start working for
common goals again"
Benito Mussolini


Here are parts of a post about Mussolini written by a very
anti-Mussolini person. He has done his homework though and cites many
books which are also anti-Mussolini and anti-Fascist. These are some
things they admit:

"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he
comforted himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister
- when he refused to take his official salary.

"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci did not aim at the defence of the ruling class or the existing
State but wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist
camp so as to prevent a victory of Bolshevism.

even after coming to power, to take drives in the country with his
wife and stop at various farmhouses on the way for a chat with the
family there. He would enjoy discussing the crops, the weather and all
the usual rural topics and obviously just liked the feeling of being
one of the people. His claim to represent the people was not just
theory but heartfelt. And he never gave up his "anti-bourgeois"
rhetoric.

His policies were basically protectionist. He controlled the
exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that old favourite
of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he tried to
get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
products.

By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain
production from its traditional level, enabling Italy to cut wheat
imports by 75% (Smith, 1967, p. 92).
He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and
in 1926 he issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save
wood pulp. And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e.
mixing industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for
cars (Smith, 1967, p. 87).

Mussolini also disliked the population drift from rural areas into
the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it unless
official permission was granted he advocated private enterprise within
a strict set of State controls designed, among other things, to
prevent abuse of monopoly power (Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).

...a big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social
insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work)
organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf.
the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures
(such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge
maternal and child welfare organization) were particularly notable for
their rationality and efficiency and, as such, were rewarded with
great success. For instance, the incidence of tuberculosis dropped
dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20% (Gregor,
p. 259).

"instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land
reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed."
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius

12th signed the Lateran treaty - which is still the legal basis for
the existence of the Vatican State to this day - and Pius in fact at
one stage called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty
recognized Roman Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as
recognizing the Vatican as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in
exchange was acceptance by the church - something that was enormously
important in the Italy of that time.

the great hatred that existed in prewar
Germany between the Nazis and the "Reds". And the early Fascists
battled the "Reds" too, of course.

The 1919 election manifesto, for instance, contained policies of
worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of
the Stock exchange, land for the peasants and abolition of the
Monarchy and nobility. Further, Mussolini never ceased to inveigh
against "plutocrats".

He wanted a harmonious and united Italy for all Italians of all
classes and was sure that achieving just treatment for the workers
needed neither revolution nor any kind of artificially enforced
equality.

This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive
"voting with your feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent
Italians from emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net
emigration actually FELL under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and
the Berlin wall.

Mussolini gained power through political rather than revolutionary
means. His famous march on Rome was only superficially revolutionary.
The King of Italy and the army approved of him because of his
pragmatic policies so did not oppose the march. So this collusion
ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was essentially bloodless.
His considerable popularity for many years among a wide range of
Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that was.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create ...a
system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate
state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights
with management.

REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen. Funk &
Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's Galbraith, J.K.
(1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell. Gregor, A.J.
(1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship Princeton, N.J.:
Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
(1989)
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
See: http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm Lenin, V.I. (1952)
"Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
lecture,
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
London:
Routledge.

[Topaz]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:30:58 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>Now you compare this with a typical program of any former eastern block
>communist party.

National Socialism really was for the people. Communism was the phony
Jewish version. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:


"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."

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

>
>I said: ok, I agree that fascism is communism (possibly only in this
>aspect of economy).

"We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect
free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible
economic order." - Adolf Hitler

Here are some quotes from Hitler's speech on January 27, 1932, at
Dusseldorf:

IF TODAY the National Socialist Movement is regarded amongst
widespread circles in Germany as being hostile to our business life, I
believe the reason for this view is to be found in the fact that we
adopted towards the events which determined the development leading to
our present position an attitude which differed from that of all the
other organizations which are of any importance in our public life.
Even now our outlook differs in many points from that of our
opponents....

There are indeed especially two other closely related factors which
we can time and again trace in periods of national decline: the one is
that for the conception of the value of personality there is
substituted a levelling idea of the supremacy of mere numbers -
democracy - and the other is the negation of the value of a people,
the denial of any difference in the inborn capacity, the achievement,
etc., of individual peoples. Thus both factors condition one another
or at least influence each other in the course of their development.
Internationalism and democracy are inseparable conceptions. It is but
logical that democracy, which within a people denies the special value
of the individual and puts in its place a value which represents the
sum of all individualities - a purely numerical value - should proceed
in precisely the same way in the life of peoples and should in that
sphere result in internationalism. Broadly it is maintained: peoples
have no inborn values, but, at the most, there can be admitted perhaps
temporary differences in education. Between Negroes, Aryans,
Mongolians, and Redskins there is no essential difference in value...

Let no one say that the picture produced as a first impression of
human civilization is the impression of its achievement as a whole.
This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all
its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the
achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its
greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of
individual God-favored geniuses, in its average accomplishment the
achievement of men of average capacity, and in its sum doubtless the
result of the use of human labor-force in order to turn to account the
creations of genius and of talent. So it is only natural that when the
capable intelligences of a nation, which are always in a minority, are
regarded only as of the same value as all the rest, then genius,
capacity, the value of personality are slowly subjected to the
majority and this process is then falsely named the rule of the
people. For this is not rule of the people, but in reality the rule of
stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-heartedness, of cowardice, of
weakness, and of inadequacy....

I may cite an example: you maintain, gentlemen, that German business
life must be constructed on a basis of private property. Now such a
conception as that of private property you can defend only if in some
way or another it appears to have a logical foundation. This
conception must deduce its ethical justification from an insight into
the necessity which Nature dictates. It cannot simply be upheld by
saying: 'It has always been so and therefore it must continue to be
so.' For in periods of great upheavals within States, of movements of
peoples and changes in thought, institutions and systems cannot remain
untouched because they have previously been preserved without change.
It is the characteristic feature of all really great revolutionary
epochs in the history of mankind that they pay astonishingly little
regard for forms which are hallowed only by age or which are
apparently only so consecrated. It is thus necessary to give such
foundations to traditional forms which are to be preserved that they
can be regarded as absolutely essential, as logical and right. And
then I am bound to say that private property can be morally and
ethically justified only if I admit that men's achievements are
different. Only on that basis can I assert: since men's achievements
are different, the results of those achievements are also different.
But if the results of those achievements are different, then it is
reasonable to leave to men the administration of those results to a
corresponding degree. It would not be logical to entrust the
administration of the result of an achievement which was bound up with
a personality either to the next best but less capable person or to a
community which, through the mere fact that it had not performed the
achievement, has proved that it is not capable of administering the
result of that achievement. Thus it must be admitted that in the
economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal
value or of equal importance. And once this is admitted it is madness
to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in
value, but that is not true in the political sphere. IT IS ABSURD TO
BUILD UP ECONOMIC LIFE ON THE CONCEPTIONS OF ACHIEVEMENT, OF THE VALUE
OF PERSONALITY, AND THEREFORE IN PRACTICE ON THE AUTHORITY OF
PERSONALITY, BUT IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE TO DENY THE AUTHORITY OF
PERSONALITY AND TO THRUST INTO ITS PLACE THE LAW OF THE GREATER NUMBER
- DEMOCRACY. In that case there must slowly arise a cleavage between
the economic and the political point of view, and to bridge that
cleavage an attempt will be made to assimilate the former to the
latter - indeed the attempt has been made, for this cleavage has not
remained bare, pale theory. The conception of the equality of values
has already, not only in politics but in economics also, been raised
to a system, and that not merely in abstract theory: no! this economic
system is alive in gigantic organizations and it has already today
inspired a State which rules over immense areas.
But I cannot regard it as possible that the life of a people should in
the long run be based upon two fundamental conceptions. If the view is
right that there are differences in human achievement, then it must
also be true that the value of men in respect of the production of
certain achievements is different It is then absurd to allow this
principle to hold good only In one sphere - the sphere of economic
life and its leadership - and to refuse to acknowledge its validity in
the sphere of the whole life-struggle of a people - the sphere of
politics. Rather the logical course is that if I recognize without
qualification in the economic sphere the fact of special achievements
as forming the condition of all higher culture, then in the same way I
should recognize special achievement in the sphere of politics, and
that means that I am bound to put in the forefront the authority of
personality. If, on the contrary, it is asserted - and that, too, by
those engaged in business - that in the political sphere special
capacities are not necessary but that here an absolute equality in
achievement reigns, then one day this same theory will be transferred
from politics and applied to economic life. But in the economic sphere
communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere. We find
ourselves today in a period in which these two fundamental principles
are at grips in all spheres which come into contact with each other;
already they are invading economics.
To take an example: Life in practical activity is founded on the
importance of personality: but now gradually it is threatened by the
supremacy of mere numbers. But in the State there is an organization -
the army - which cannot in any way be democratized without
surrendering its very existence. But if a Weltanschauung cannot be
applied to every sphere of a people's life, that fact in itself is
sufficient proof of its weakness. In other words: the army can exist
only if it maintains the absolutely undemocratic principle of
unconditional authority proceeding downwards and absolute
responsibility proceeding upwards, while, in contradistinction to
this, democracy means in practice complete dependence proceeding
downwards and authority proceeding upwards. But the result is that in
a State in which the whole political life - beginning with the parish
and ending with the Reichstag - is built up on the conception of
democracy, the army is bound gradually to become an alien body and an
alien body which must necessarily be felt to be such...

To sum up the argument: I see two diametrically opposed principles:
the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical
effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the
authority of personality which I would call the principle of
achievement, because whatever man in the past has achieved - all human
civilizations - is conceivable only if the supremacy of this principle
is admitted.

>Of course there are differences, mainly the colours differ. RED is the
>colour of communism and brown that of fascism. Actually BLACK is used
>more often. E.g. the SS uniforms were black.
>
>Fascism is usually vicious and brutal, but you'd be surprised, how many
>people got killed by their liberators, as the communists like to call
>themselves.

Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:

We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.

Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.

The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.

Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.

No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.

It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.

We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.

Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force.
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.

If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"

That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.

As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.

At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.

Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.

The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.

Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.

In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."

Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"

Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platform I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where
there were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised
by what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.

>
>So there is one difference left and that is the role of the capitalists.
>In communism everything is owned by the state. In capitalism the state
>is owned by the corporations and that by the capitalists.

>To the average person the difference is insignificant, only the colours
>are somehow different and in communism the rules are a little more
>strict. But fascism compensates this with excessive violence.

Here are some quotes from "With Hitler on the Road to Power" by Dr.
Otto Dietrich

The "Dritte Reich" stands firm. It rests on its foundations, on the
immortal values of the Nordic Race, and in the depth of Germany's
soul.

We call Adolf Hitler our "Leader" (Fuehrer), because that is what he
is. He united State and Nation in Germany.

Only the eye-witness, who has experienced day by day, at the side of
Adolf Hitler, the wave of love and enthusiasm which greets him from
every class of German, can realize that such ovations, so rare in the
life of statesmen, signify no artificial feeling, but genuine
affection.. Hundreds, thousands throng the streets and roads, and
surge toward his car.. The scenes which we witness day by day are
touching and heart-rending. They are not isolated examples, but occur
everywhere.

The history of the National Socialist Movement shall be handed down to
posterity as the epic of the resurrected German Nation.

With indomitable will and unprecedented perseverance, which no
reverse can dishearten, this previously unknown man of the people,
with a few faithful adherents, dared to pierce the lines of the
Marxist terror.. He knows; terror is not overcome by intellect, but by
terror.

Adolf Hitler was not permitted to speak in public. The party lacked
the most essential means. It's existence during the following years -
probably the most arduous of its life - was one long series of
persecutions, muzzling, and trickery. Whoever admitted National
Socialism, was banished from civil life, from the decadent bourgeoisie
and from the class-conscious workers. The mere suspicion of National
Socialism meant the loss of employment and bread, boycott and ruin of
business interests, the inevitable acceptance of misery.

Hundreds, thousands were imprisoned by the November State Government.
Throughout the streets raged bloodshed and scenes of Marxist terror.
All the powers of hell were let loose against the advancing young
movement.

After twelve years of inconceivably laborious preparation, the
N.S.D.A.P. felt strong enough to knock at the door of power in the
Reich

But strong elements of economic opposition were still prevalent, and
these he attacked at the beginning of 1932.

Even today, I can picture this meeting of prominent men. We came for
Godesberg, and drove up to the Park Hotel, amidst the hooting of the
Marxists. The room was over crowded. Huddled together, sat the chief
West German magnates. There were familiar and unfamiliar faces. Men in
the public eye , and those quiet , but no less influential powers,
who, moving behind the scenes, control the fate of economy by the soft
sounds issuing from their private offices- men said to bear a ledger
rather than a heart.

Joyful expectation brightened the faces of those already converted.
But the vast majority bore an air of superiority and cool reserve-
probably flattered that Hitler had approached them. Mere curiosity,
and general interest lured them to the meeting. They wanted to hear
Hitler speak. They had no intention of being converted; the came to
criticize, seeking confirmation of their own infallible opinion.

Our leader received a chilly ovation; he spoke from a slightly raised,
projecting balustrade, he hands resting lightly on the iron railing. I
sat, amongst the listeners, taking notes, and observing the effect of
his speech which lasted for over two hours. From world political
perspective and with cogent logic, out leader elucidated the relations
between economy and politics, their reciprocal effect, and their
results in Germany. He explained the cause of the situation , and
proposed the only possible remedy.

The general impression upon this group of most impassive listeners was
astounding. After an hour, their chilly reserve gave way to intense
interest. Hitler spoke of the titanic struggle of his political
warriors, needy and persecuted, but making every sacrifice, even that
of life, for their nation. He contrasted the German youth's unselfish
idealism, personified in National Socialism, and the noble character
of working-class followers, with the lack of comprehension, the
materialism, and the heavy guilt of the purely economically
established Bourgeoisie. He pricked their social conscience without
causing offence.

They began to flush, fixed their gaze upon out Leader's lips, and it
seemed as if their hearts were moved. He spoke to their very souls.
Faint, then thundering applause greeted Hitler at the conclusion of
his speech; he had won a battle.


The Jewish and Marxist Press lied boldly next day that Hitler had
feasted with the industrial magnates on champagne and lobsters.
Actually, a few minutes later, the night say us on the road again,
bent on fresh work.

Next day, Hitler addressed with equal success the Crefeld Silk
magnates in Godesberg. Later the national club in Hamburg. Everywhere,
the scene was the same.

Those were daring journeys, fraught with danger, through the very
strongholds of the Marxist potentates who were on the track of their
hated, sworn foe.

But Adolf Hitler fought his way through. The number-plate of his car
was smeared with oil and coated with dust- quite indiscernible.

Then we held our first meeting in Goerlitz, where the attendance
exceeded the hundred thousand figure. All the roads were crowed with
masses of people on foot, on bicycles, and in lorries, all with the
same destination.

Hitler spoke as the stars arose in the heavens, and amidst the flaring
torches.

Now the crowds recognized the luminous plane carrying our leader, who
had just devoted his time to them. Cheers broke out from a hundred
thousand throats, drowning even the thunder of our motors, whilst the
crowds brandished flaming torches in greeting.

We have experienced the following fact; In Germany, wherever economic
and moral distress was greatest, wherever things seemed most
intolerable, there, confidence in our leader was strongest, and
gripped all the people.

Wherever our leader approached, every man and woman came out. Crowds
lined the streets. Aged grandmothers, on whose distressed faces the
direst poverty was written, raised their arms in greeting. Wherever we
stopped, the women stretched out their children towards our leader.
There were tears of joy and emotion.

They used to meet upon the Platterhof. Adolf Hitler would often come
in the night fog to the Platterhof, to take counsel with his friends.

The "Conservative State Idea" appropriated our ideas. The most ancient
political mummies of the past suddenly appeared upon the scene, and,
without shame, claimed the credit for out previous successes.

The Youth stood by Hitler, because it knew that he personified the
Nation's Youth. From the beginning, our leader had valued most highly
the immense importance of Youth for the movement. Not the old
generation, but a rising generation, uncorrupted by the destructive
poison of the world ideas of the ruling classes, could bear the new
Germany upon its shoulders.

Finally, on 30th January, 1933, our leader made the short drive over
the Wilhelmsplatz to the Reichskanzler's Office. Amidst boundless
cheers. The seige was over, the fortress had fallen, the gates lay
open.

The political lie had played a prominent role in all epochs of
parliamentary history. But such accumulations of lies and defamations
as our opponents have hurled against the awakening young Germany in
the course of our 13 years' struggle have not been experienced.

What National Socialist's blood does not boil, if he recalls the rapid
fire of press lies, that witches Sabbath of infernal songs of hatred,
which burst upon the National Socialist Movement every day?

The activity of the Marxist Press against National Socialism, by means
of profligacy, unscrupulous lies and base agitation of the public,
stands unrivalled throughout the press of the whole world.

But this systematic lying campaign of our opponents was always the
best evidence of the moral weakness of their own position. The more
desperate their situation was, the more unscrupulous became their
press agitation.

The agitation of the Jewish-Marxist Press against the N.S.D.A.P., has
been such an essential ingredient of our opponents' struggle during
all these years, that we would be guilty of historical forgery if we
did not lay due stress upon this lying campaign in our description of
the events.

The National Socialist Party has re-united people and State, it has
restored the people to the State, and the State to the people. In this
way, an organism, complete within itself, and comprising every
function of the life of the community, was born from the Nation
itself, in the midst of a decadent people and a corrupt State.

In Nuremberg, the Party represented the German people and the German
State, before the eyes of the whole world. This was a more complete, a
more morally dignified, and a more imposing representation than the
State and Nation have ever previously enjoyed.

If proves the recognition that a new valuation of men, a valuation
based upon the laws of nature, is beginning to force its way through
from the hearts of the European Nations. It is about to overcome
Liberalism, and replace it by a new conception of the living
community.

The democratic, parliamentary Liberalism apodictically claimed for
itself the eternal title of the most purposeful and best form of
representation of the peoples rights. At last with its own eyes, the
Nation has recognized National Socialism as the organization of
naturally chosen leaders. National Socialism's achievements in the
fields of Socialism, Economy, Administration, and Reformation of the
Reich, speak for themselves. In one sweep, these leaders have
accomplished what dozens of previous parliamentary, democratic
governments vainly attempted in the most deplorable way.

Probably it is an act of justice and compensation, that the German
Nation, so sorely afflicted by the world-war, is chosen to lead the
way to a better future for the nations.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.02.2012 22:02, schrieb Topaz:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:30:58 +0100, Thomas Heger<ttt...@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Now you compare this with a typical program of any former eastern block
>> communist party.
>
>
> National Socialism really was for the people. Communism was the phony
> Jewish version. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
>
>

That book is banned in Germany, hence I didn't know it. Actually I had
no intention to read it neither.

Anyhow: the connection between socialism and national socialism is the
idea of ordered and directed masses.

The principle is, not to look at the individual person and the
individual rights, but establish an ordered society, where people march
as wanted and work as wanted and believe what is told.

This is best described in Orwell's 1984 and actually means the UK in the
late '40th. Since 'collectivism' is the core idea of communism (and
fascism), we had to understand the reason for the emphasis on masses in
both fascism and communism.

The idea is of course control of the masses and dictatorship upon the
people. The colour itself is insignificant, since control is the key.

Since power is also generating wealth, an autocratic government of any
kind could easily grant 'ownership of everything to everybody', since in
the end, the control is in their hand.

So, we the people, have to wrestle the control out of these hand and
return it back to people and give the autocrats a kick, whatever their
colour might be.

Since most people do not know, how murderous the communist actually
were, information about crimes is a viable way to convince people, that
such a society is the least desirable thing to have. Fascism is even
worse, as that system directly addresses insane and evil motives in
common people and rewards obeying with the allowance to execute crimes.

So both of these political ideas share the same characteristics of
antihuman, unjust, violent collectivism, that tends to deprive the
individual from their rights and intends to rip off individual
resources. This theft is not done primarily for gaining wealth, but to
apply force, that pushes the individual under group control.

This control over the masses is, what these systems actually want. It is
a universal slavery, that deprives the individual from all their
liberties. The communists do it by theft and the fascists by force, but
the difference is not significant.


TH



TH

[Topaz]

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:52:41 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>That book is banned in Germany, hence I didn't know it. Actually I had
>no intention to read it neither.
>
>Anyhow: the connection between socialism and national socialism is the
>idea of ordered and directed masses.
>
>The principle is, not to look at the individual person and the
>individual rights, but establish an ordered society, where people march
>as wanted and work as wanted and believe what is told.

The Jews control your media and your mind. You believe what is told.

>
>This is best described in Orwell's 1984 and actually means the UK in the
>late '40th. Since 'collectivism' is the core idea of communism (and
>fascism), we had to understand the reason for the emphasis on masses in
>both fascism and communism.

Here is part of a speech by Rudolf Hess in East Prussia in July 1934

"Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
the leadership of the state.
The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
towered above the individual fate."

>The idea is of course control of the masses and dictatorship upon the
>people. The colour itself is insignificant, since control is the key.

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the
multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and
personal efficiency."

"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in
the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the
individual personality?"

"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might
not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless
the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the
facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the
crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics.
Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real
qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in
political life; because under these circumstances the situation does
not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of
the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will
attract them accordingly."

"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority
can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance
but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one
man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political
line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude."

"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system
to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed
deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of
nonentities who are dependant on others for their views and who can
be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each
individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according
the the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put into effect. And by
this method alone is it possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the
real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never
be brought to account for his actions."

"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone
should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man
responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the
politicians for the time being, who constituted the parlimentary
majority, were small and incompetent men or maybe even on a lower
grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for abstract
principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of the
nation."

"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for
the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and
influence in the community."

>Since power is also generating wealth, an autocratic government of any
>kind could easily grant 'ownership of everything to everybody', since in
>the end, the control is in their hand.

>So, we the people, have to wrestle the control out of these hand and
>return it back to people and give the autocrats a kick, whatever their
>colour might be.

Many people think they arrive at their own ideas all by themselves,
when in fact their ideas are usually made for them by Hollywood. Take
two movies that are anti-leadership propaganda, Gladiator, and
Braveheart.

In Gladiator they show a corrupt leader of Rome, but would it be
corrupt if Maximus was the leader? That would be much better than
having the lame senators running Rome. And of course in Braveheart the
Scots should have made William their leader. If he was the leader he
could have put the corrupt nobles in their place.

The purpose of the propaganda is to stop good people from wanting
power. The people who have the real power now, the bankers and the
media, are not threatened in the least by libertarians. But if there
was a leader that was really for the people they know they would be
put in their place.

In democracies money talks and those who can buy TV stations are
the rulers. These rulers don't even claim to be for anything but their
own profits and interests. People are much better off with a good
leader who has power above the money power.

>Since most people do not know, how murderous the communist actually
>were,

True

>information about crimes is a viable way to convince people, that
>such a society is the least desirable thing to have. Fascism is even
>worse, as that system directly addresses insane and evil motives in
>common people and rewards obeying with the allowance to execute crimes.

WHAT IS FASCISM?

By James Miller, PhD

Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of
this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social
ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but
basically they all come down to the following.

Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a
central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor
activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done

for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its

people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business
activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a
whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which
determines everything under Fascism.

>So both of these political ideas share the same characteristics of
>antihuman, unjust, violent collectivism,

National Socialism really was for the people. Communism was the phony
Jewish version. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

> that tends to deprive the
>individual from their rights and intends to rip off individual
>resources. This theft is not done primarily for gaining wealth, but to
>apply force, that pushes the individual under group control.

The only American politician that did the people a lot of good
was Huey Long. And that was because he had a lot of power. He needed
power to go against the Rockefellers and other moneybags. Citizens
should want their champion to have as much power as possible. Of
course the media, which is owned by the moneybags, will call the
champion a "dictator". Here are some quotes from the film "Huey Long"
by Ken Burns:

"When he got done with his talk, the ones that hated him, didn't hate
him any more."

"No home to live in, and yet there were houses vacant. No bread on the
table, and yet we have a surplus of wheat. No clothes, and yet we have
a surplus of cotton."

"I used to try to get things done by saying please, now I dynamite em
out of my path."

"To diffuse opposition from the press he launched his own newspaper."

"The state militia and national guard were his private army. And
effective political opposition had almost ceased to exist. It was the
largest concentration of power in one mans hand the country had ever
seen."

"According to the tables which we have assembled, it is our estimate
that four percent of the American people own eighty five percent of
the wealth of America. And that over seventy percent of the people of
America don't own enough to pay the debts that they owe."

"We've got to have in candidate away from the Republican party, and
away from the Democratic party, and I for one am perfectly willing to
see that there is another choice in the United States in 1936."

"I think he came to the conclusion, that you cannot do the good that
he wanted to do, and
deliver the services that he wanted to deliver, and free people from
the exploitation as he wanted to, you cannot do that in a democracy.
That the pressures were too strongly against it, the pressures of
large economic interests. Long despaired of democracy and turned to
the rather dictatorial methods that he used."

"From Huey's point of view, to separate the rich from some of that
wealth, in order that those who were less fortunate could have a
little something, was worth paying a big price for."

"His critics were confusing the form of democracy with the fact of
democracy. The people's votes didn't do them much good until Huey Long
came along. Maybe his enemies didn't like his methods, but the people
were getting what they voted for."

"The poor people had nothing at all, life was so hard for them, and he
changed all of that. He promised there would be changes and there were
changes, immediately. He was like a steam roller. He knew he was going
to be killed."

"When he was shot he didn't fall, he walked out of the building."

"His last words were, 'Don't let me die, I've got so much to do'."

>This control over the masses is, what these systems actually want. It is
>a universal slavery,

Here are some quotes from the German pamphlet "How they Lie" from
1940. The pamphlet has many pictures but the words alone are
interesting enough:

"For example, what would you say if a colleague of yours, whom you
regarded as a rival and who disliked you, were to spread the rumor
that your household is in disorder, that you murder small children and
rape defenseless women? Rest assured that in our country such a person
would soon be behind bars.

But the international politicians and journalists who slander entire
peoples in a shameless manner not only run around freely, they
impudently put on airs as the saviors of human culture. No lie is too
crude for them, no slander too vulgar-they understand their craft.
Even in World War I they knew how to incite hate with the help of
atrocity propaganda. We all recall those daily lies of the "German
barbarian" who, "like a wild beast rages over the earth and destroys
everything in hate and the fury of annihilation, who tortures children
and delights in the tears of mothers," as a foreign paper once wrote.

In war, man stands against man. Each serves the Fatherland in his own
way, and no soldier will deny the knightly convictions of a noble
opponent. Today, however, a cowardly gang of professional agitators
daily invents new lies and pictures from the safety of their desks.

How was the German soldier once depicted by enemy atrocity propaganda?
We all know them, for we had fathers, brothers, sons, and men out
there. For instance, on 20 March 1915, the newspaper "Le Rire Rouge"
published the following picture of the good German soldier:

A bloodthirsty murderer of women and children, a robber and plunderer,
who nourishes himself with sausages made from human flesh-that was how
it saw the brave and loyal German soldier.

Each of us knows what a crude and baseless lie this is. Every decent
person in the world should have known this. And yet: "Some of it will
always be believed, the stupid and gullible will never see through it
all" - so hope the political liars and slanderers.
We know what to think about this flood of slander flowing over the
German people. We heard the same things between 1914 and 1918. Then as
now, they are attempting to drive a wedge between leaders and people.
The goal of this propaganda is always the annihilation of Germany.

We are also familiar with the old lie about the desecration of
churches and shrines, which are once again in fashion with our
enemies.

This is the undamaged cathedral of Tschenstochau.
The picture of the Polish shrine of the Black Madonna, with the German
soldiers in the foreground, was taken after its alleged destruction by
German bombers.
While the lying and yellow press of the entire world and the enemy
transmitters were inventing hypocritical stories about the presumed
destruction of the holy shrine, the Prior of Tschenstochau wrote the
above letter to the German military authorities that clearly testifies
that the monastery and holy shrine were untouched.

Thus the lie regarding supposed German attack could be immediately
exposed. The English Ministry of Advertising has had nothing to say
since.
In reality, these lies are ancient. Our enemies always babble about
violated sanctuaries, persecuted priests, murdered children and
tortured women in order to prejudice the world against Germany and to
arouse the impression that the world must be defended against "the
barbarians who are threatening human culture."

The picture above is taken from a leafet dated 19 August 1914. The
same lie was used back then. Supposedly the Germans had attacked the
monastery at Jasno-Gora.

They always lied, they lie today, they lie, they lie.
There were countless numbers of these malicious pictures in World War
I. Today we see the new versions of this crude charge. Enemy radio
reports reports of drugged candy and poison gas-filled children's
balloons, with which German troops allegedly killed Polish children.
And our enemies decided to spread this vile slander in the exact
moment that the world heard from neutral journalists about the
unimaginable crimes perpetrated by the Polish on fellow German
countrymen. All of these neutral independent reporters saw and
corroborated the terrible atrocities against Germans with their own
eyes. In light of these proven facts, the shameless enemy presumes to
turn the tables and pin these murders on the Germans, declaring that
the murdered, whose names and addresses are known, are Poles.

They hate the Fuehrer, because he exposes their lies and crimes.
They hate him, because he rescued the hard-working German people from
eploitation. How happy they would be to see the Führer and the entire
German people delivered into the dark machinations of the world
Jewry! It shows the impotence of the Jews, since all they can do is
drag a straw man through the streets and burn it.
What do these subhumans know about the joy of a genuine national
community? These warmongers are hard at work rousing the world against
Germany. How little they know about the indisoluble bond between
Führer and people that is so overwhelmingly clear in this picture:

The Fuehrer speaks with German workers.
He knows that he can trust them, and they know that our cause is in
his good hands.

The enemy countries, who are so worried about the fate of the German
people, also worry about the S. A.

We have often seen them; we know how these men look. They are our
comrades, our colleagues in the workplace, our fathers, brothers, sons
and men.
Do they look like this? Since when are these imagined daggers the true
symbol of the S. A.? Once again some professional liar has taken his
pen in his hand.
They lie, they lie....

German men from all regions and occupations use their free time and
energy in regular practice, so they can be ready to serve the
community. When in the summer of 1939 the agricultural labor force was
too small to bring in the rich harvest, these men freely joined in to
help with the harvest, serving the homeland on peaceful fields. Why
does the enemy press, which loves to speak of its objective reporting,
never carry such pictures of Germany?

The more one examines their endless scribbling and radio news, the
clearer one sees that these expert liars have never spoken the truth,
not even once.
This time a newspaper really outdid itself. Here we see how a German
holiday is libeled.

Christmas and Nazi Winter Relief
We all know this picture. It is the Christmas celebration of a German
family that did not have the means by itself to celebrate this holiday
of love in the way the Führer wishes, in the way that every German
family should experience.
The NSV got involved.

Helpers, men and women, walked upstairs and downstairs, heard the
wishes of the needy, and provided gifts.
We all know the results. In any case, the 80 million people of the
greater German Reich know that the liar who drew the picture on the
previous page of an alleged German Christmas is not only a liar but
also an idiot. If the gentlemen wanted to lie, they should have at
least started out more intelligently, so that they were not found out
immediately.
What National Socialist Germany has done and continues to do for
working people is unique in the entire world.

The foreign plutocratic countries that are dominated by high finance
viewed this new and happy life with envy and ill-will. They never
ceased in their endeavor to compel this new Germany into war, to keep
it in the same miserable state it was in after the Treaty of
Versailles.

But Germany knows what it has to lose. And because it is stronger than
the rest of the world, it will end this struggle victoriously.

Mr. Churchill, English warmonger, First Lord of the Admiralty,
architect of the encirclement campaign had it easy in the fall of
1939.
When he decided to wage war against Germany, he selected four English
passenger ships that were sailing to America. Then he sent the above
telegram, dated 28 August 1939, to Cunard White Star Lines, compelling
them to turn German passengers away from these ships, as they would be
uncomfortable eyewitnesses. See the accompanying letter from the
shipping company, dated 29 August 1939. Churchill then sent suitable
"rescue ships" to be "coincidentally" on the course of these ships,
which were now loaded with Americans. The Athenia was torpedoed and
sunk. If the affair with the "Athenia" not worked, then one of the
other three ships would have been sunk,so that Mr. Churchill would
have more stories for the English Ministry of Lies.

We know the rest. The yellow press of the world blows Churchill's
lying horn obediently: a German submarine allegedly sank the
"Athenia."
But the evil, criminal escapade failed. Germany got hold of the
documents and exposed the criminals.

Once again, one of the vilest and most base of the English lies is
exposed.
The following story is perhaps the best way of showing the reality of
moneybags journalism, and how decent foreign journalists are forced to
invent lie afer lie.
A couple of months ago, a foreign journalist whose name we must hide
in order to protect his job, came to Germany. He wanted to see the
alleged "Nazi hell" with his own eyes, in order to give an eyewitness
account.

He saw workers who had jobs. He saw workers taking vacations with the
KdF. And he saw workers going to the theater. He saw the NSV's charity
for the poor. He saw and was amazed.

He had not expected to see that! How could he, knowing the truth,
continue to write lies and false atrocity stories about Germany, like
the financiers of his newspaper want it?...
In German camps, criminals and misfits live in clean and orderly
accommodations, receive sufficient nourishment and have enough time
for both work and play.
The foreign press reporter visited one of these camps.
The officials of the German concentration camp were outraged when they
later read his article.

The article talked about piles of corpses over which the poor reporter
had to climb, of moaning people in dark dungeons, of caning orgies and
other such imaginary atrocities.
The man had seemed so honest. How could he lie like that? What had
happened? The journalist wrote a letter to explain. He had written a
truthful account of what he had seen at the concentration camp.

But the owner of the newspaper switched everything around. Naturally
there are decent foreign papers that would never falsify the facts
like that, but we are not talking about them here.

The newspaperman begged the Germans not to take action against his
paper or the publisher who falsified the report, because then he would
lose his job.
That is how freedom of the press looks like in other countries; that
is how the lies and fairy tales come to be.

The Fuehrer spoke about the criminal newspaper Jews and the war
profiteers, in his speech on 6 October. They order the journalists and
radio reporters around like schoolboys. These "servants of public
opinion" are not allowed to have convictions or express their true
opinions, and only a very few exceptions prove this rule. They must
lie and slander and blacken Germany and its Fuehrer to keep the
gentlemen behind the plutocratic, moneybag policies in business.

But why do these newspaper moneybags lie so crudely, so stupidly, so
impudently? Why do they spread their slander all over Germany of all
places?

They lie because they are weak and Germany is strong. They lie because
they want to make money by going to war against Germany, even though
the people do not want to go to war and are scared to go to war
against a strong Germany...

Things are a thousand times better here. Things are more honest and
fair here than anywhere in the entire world.
Here we recognize the honor of the worker.
Here there is a right to work.
Here the moneybags are not in control...
In conclusion:
We will not be confused by the lies of the foreign countries! We know
what we are fighting for!

>that deprives the individual from all their
>liberties. The communists do it by theft and the fascists by force, but
>the difference is not significant.

Here are some quotes from "The Eleventh Hour" by John Tyndall

"For a short time, Britons from all regions of the country and its
Empire, and from every social background, came together in a single
cause, casting aside all previous political party and class divisions
and joined hands in a common comradeship of the trenches.

And for the first time in centuries politicians in this country put
aside party warfare and joined forces in working for a single goal. A
coalition government was formed in 1916 and proceeded to coordinate
the whole national life in one mighty endeavor. Laissez-faire
Economics were dropped as Britain found that these methods, practiced
so long in the years of peace had rendered her industry hopelessly
incapable of producing her needs of survival in this titanic conflict.
New industries, such as chemicals, machine tools and optics, had to be
built practically from scratch, while others, such as electricity,
aircraft and aero-engines, had to be greatly expanded, in order to
provide the sinews of war; and this was done mainly on the initiative
of the state. By the end of the war, tremendous strides had been made
in making good these previous shortcomings of industry. What the
theoretical stimulus of the "free market" had failed to do for decades
beforehand was done in just three years of corporate effort, achieved
by firm national leadership directing economic resources, and by the
whole nation, and Empire, working as a team."

"Could not the super-human efforts displayed on the battlefield in the
face of a dangerous adversity now be displayed again in the creation,
from out of the rubble of newly born nations?"

"Sir Oswald Mosley... had crossed to the Labour benches after
despairing of the Tories' ability or will to overcome the evils of
poverty and unemployment in post 1918 Britain...

In time, however, Mosley came to recognize that in the ranks of
Labour, however ideal the ends, there was a total incomprehension of,
combined an unwillingness to accept, the necessary means... he said:

"This nation has to be mobilized and rallied for a tremendous effort,
and who can do that except the government of the day?"

In the simplest terms, nationalism is no more than team spirit. Just
as the school, the firm the regiment and the rugby team need, each in
its own way to be infused with a pride of identity and a desire to
win, so must nations, if they are to be effective forces for the
furtherance of their own interests and for their survival in the
world, be galvanized by the same vital forces."

[matt.c...@gmail.com]

Great post. thanx. Intelligent Americans do not chant the Pledge of
Allegiance. The pledge was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi
behavior. http://rexcurry.net/pledge.html The early salute began with
a military salute that was then extended outward to point at the flag.
In practice the extended arm was palm-down cuz the military salute was
pointed outward at the flag. The Pledge was the origin of the nazi
salute via Ernst Hanfstaengl. See the discoveries of the historian Dr.
Rex Curry & eye-popping old videos & photos of America's early nazi
salute (please publish them for your readers to see). Bellamy was a
religious wacko & the pledge was in a larger program of his with
prayers, hymns, etc & the phrase "Under God." Thankfully the entire
program is not performed. It is the source of unthinking respect for
authority and a great enemy of truth. Government schools (socialist
schools) will never tell the truth about it. It continues to be the
origin of Nazi behavior. Only the gesture has changed. Please help
spread the word and help all of us intelligent Americans stop the
pledge.

fascism = socialism http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

Boy scouts & girl scouts did nazi salute from USA and spread it
worldwide including Germany
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-of-allegiance-scouting.html

[matt.c...@gmail.com]

The Boy Scouts have used a stiff-arm salute in the USA when it was the
gesture for the Pledge of Allegiance. They also used a
military-style hand-to-head salute because that is how the early
Pledge of Allegiance began, and then the military salute was extended
outward to point at the flag. They eventually dropped the stiff-armed
salute when they were parroted by German national socialists. Please
use reliable sources next time. There are old photos of it.

Boy scouts & girl scouts did nazi salute from USA and spread it
worldwide including Germany
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-of-allegiance-scouting.html

Intelligent Americans do not chant the Pledge of Allegiance. The
pledge was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior.
http://rexcurry.net/pledge.html

The early salute began with a military salute that was then extended
outward to point at the flag. In practice the extended arm was palm-
down cuz the military salute was pointed outward at the flag. The
Pledge was the origin of the nazi salute via Ernst Hanfstaengl. See
the discoveries of the historian Dr. Rex Curry & eye-popping old

videos & photos of America's early nazi salute.

[Topaz]

"We National Socialists have grown accustomed since our takeover in
1933 to the particular attention of the leading politicians of the
U.S.A. and of the international Jews who stand behind them. Our
defensive measures against international Jewry have aroused increasing
tirades against Germany in America. Sometimes it seemed as if it would
be impossible to increase the flood of hatred and lies...

After leading politicians such as the American Secretary of the
Interior Harold Ickes and Senator Pittman attacked the German
government in the foulest manner, President Roosevelt did even more in
his New Year address. He tried to persuade the American people that
world peace was not assured, and that it was the duty of the American
people to defend three vital principles: those of religion, democracy
and international good will. Roosevelt did not believe these
principles were threatened by Soviet Russia or Soviet Spain, rather by
authoritarian Germany and Italy.

Millions are dead in Soviet Russia and Spanish priests estimate that a
half million people have been murdered there only because of their
faith, but that is not important and proves nothing. The dead do not
trouble the American President's conscience, indeed they did not stop
him from being the single world statesman to congratulate the Soviet
Russian government on the anniversary of the Bolshevist Revolution. No
other statesman did this, which explains why no other statesman
received such praise from the Soviet press. The Soviet press praised
the "noble efforts of the great American statesman."

Roosevelt also ignored the murder of millions of people when it was
called to his attention by a letter from the former Spanish ambassador
in Great Britain, the Marquis de Merry del Wal. The ambassador told
Mr. Roosevelt the following:

Your country's press tells the world of Your Excellency's protests
against the "persecution of the Jews" in Germany. According to the
press, you are deeply distressed by these events. How is it then that
the murder and massacre of 400,000 defenseless men, women and children
in Spain has not resulted in the slightest distress on your part?
These unfortunate people did not die on the battlefields of a civil
war. They were torn from their homes and murdered in public not only
because of their political, but also their religious, beliefs. Their
murderers openly declared their goal of destroying the very
civilization that Your Excellency defends. They have intentionally
destroyed thousands of churches and monuments along with uncounted
works of art and private homes. They have torn the clothes from nuns
and revealed them to everyone's eyes. They raped women and looted to a
degree unknown in the annals of the Christian era.

Your own ambassador, Your Excellency, against all the laws, norms and
customs of international law, has been forced to live away from the
government to which he is accredited, since as he said his personal
security would otherwise be in danger. I further know, Your
Excellency, that you have received certain proof of my assertions, for
I have made efforts to ensure that you have received reports that
support what I have said. Despite that, Your Excellency, you complain
about events in Germany, events that cannot be compared with what is
happening in Spain-and you have not given even the slightest sign of
disapproval at the death of hundreds of thousands of people who have
18 million fellow believers who are among the best citizens of your
country, far more than the two million Jews.

These people have been murdered solely because of their beliefs. Mr.
Roosevelt however has never spoken of a threat to faith or religion.
But they were only believers in a Christian church, after all. Mr.
Roosevelt is conducting a crusade against the authoritarian states
under the banner of religion only because the religious compatriots of
his closest friends have been put in their place in the authoritarian
states.

If President Roosevelt believes that he has to take the field to
defend democracy, we may ask where and when we have ever threatened or
attacked democracy. In the past years Germany has done nothing more
than to partially undo the injustices inflicted on it by the
predecessor of the current president of the U.S.A. Germany has not
arbitrarily altered the map of Europe as he did, creating states
against the will of their peoples only for purposes of power politics.
It has only reclaimed its citizens who suffered a decade long under
governments foreign or hostile to Germany...

In a closed session, he told the Defense Committee of the Senate that
the United States must be ready to support England and France in the
event of a European war. The President reportedly even suggested that
definite agreements already existed to this effect. He further
proposed the unrestricted sale of war materials to Western Europe. The
only restriction was that they had to be able to pay for it. When a
member of the American Senate asked how this policy could be squared
with the law demanding strict neutrality over against Europe,
Roosevelt replied: "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
These revelations naturally were a sensation throughout the world. The
impact was greater than the master of the White House in Washington
wanted. He therefore denied the reports. The force of his denial was
somewhat weakened by excited reports in the American press in which
various members of Congress refused to be called liars, and
furthermore suggested that Roosevelt had said even more during the
session than has been reported. The force of the denial was also
weakened by a cynical article in a French newspaper that noted that
"the strength of the claim has not been weakened, for it is not a
matter of the letter of the law, but of the spirit."...

Roosevelt is acting as the mouthpiece and puppet of international
Jewry when he attacks the authoritarian states. They want to use every
means to destroy the newly awakened nations...

The leaders of the Soviet Union tried to persuade their people that
true communism could only develop after all the other states of the
world were allies of the powers in Moscow, and the Red rulers in
Soviet Spain tried and tried to conceal their governmental
incompetence by unleashing a world conflict. We are not surprised to
see the American President in such company. The real rulers of the
Soviet Union are the same as in the United States: international
Jewry.

The truth of this claim is confirmed by the behavior of the wife of
the American President. Mrs. Roosevelt, as a sign of her support for
the Spanish Bolshevist rulers, accepted a gift of stolen etchings by
Spanish masters. Mrs. Roosevelt chaired an exhibition of busts of
Spanish Communist leaders, made by the Jew Josef Davidson. She also
invited the well-known top Bolshevist Toller to lunch. She surrounds
herself with wounded bigwigs of Soviet Spain under whose orders
500,000 Spaniards were killed only because they were faithful to their
beliefs and their religion...

America today is not governed by men like Roosevelt, Ickes, etc.,
rather its fate is determined by the Jews who stand behind them, Jews
like Baruch, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, etc. They are the real rulers of
America, and Roosevelt, Ickes, etc., are only their tools. The fact
that this is known in America is evident from a variety of newspaper
articles. The "New York Daily News," for example, wrote that "the wave
of anti-Semitism in America has increased significantly in recent
weeks and months." The fact that the Jew Bernard Baruch, the
President's closest adviser, is called the unofficial president of the
United States is proof of this fact.

But enough of that. We refuse to interfere in the affairs of other
nations. We think that every country gets the Jews that it deserves.
But we demand the same principle be extended to us. Let Mr. Roosevelt
carry out his reforms and crusades in his own country. He will not
live long enough to do it all. We do not think we have yet seen
anything on the other side of the ocean that is worth imitating. We
think it not a sign of ability, rather of incompetence, that a nation
with such enormous resources and space, with all modern methods, finds
itself in such mass misery and is unable to do anything to alleviate
that misery.

Where would Roosevelt be if he had had to deal with the situation the
Führer faced when he took power in Germany? Mr. Roosevelt has
agricultural resources more than sufficient to feed the country, yet
his people are starving. His country has enormous resources, yet
millions are unemployed. There is only one conclusion to be drawn."

[Topaz]

Leon Degrelle

"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.

His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.

Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.

It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew-as almost
all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing, an
almost desperate responsibility.

Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.

During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.

By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.

Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.

Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.

Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.

During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.

"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."

But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.

Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.

Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms-with a
combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left..

One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.

In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932..

Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew-politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now legally
and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly convert
that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?

For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides-those for and those against Hitler-were very nearly
equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided among
themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one thing
above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable advantage: in
their convictions and in their total faith in a leader. Their highly
organized and well-disciplined party had contented with the worst kind
of obstacles, and had overcome them..

In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.

Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production..

For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; ..

The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."

It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable..

Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.

"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.

That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:

For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy-He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career..

When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government..

After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."..

"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"..

Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone..

Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class..

Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.

Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose..

In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts-and,
often enough, full pockets?

Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.

In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.

Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)

Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday..

I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio..

In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.

Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.

Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.

Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.

A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.

This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.

By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)

Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?

No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.

The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds-a
million-of those attending were workers. "This May First was victory
day," the paper summed up.

With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?

Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.

Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard-or their guns. Restoring the nation would take
more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements. Only
then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May First
mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.

How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?

What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?

How could men's lives be improved-materially, morally, and, one might
even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new society fit
for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and prejudices of
the past?

"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."

The instruments of real power now in his hands-an authoritarian state,
its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole-Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of the
last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.

Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.

He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.

His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:

Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation-The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.

And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)

"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."

Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.

So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?..

Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.

The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products..

Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.

Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.

From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.

Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)

"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."

Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.

Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler-like nearly all of
his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."

"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.

"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?

Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.

Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.

He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.

State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.

For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.

Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.

Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."

Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.

The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."

Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent-were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable..

"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"

Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.

"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."

"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."


What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall-this company would eventually promote
many billions of marks worth of investment.

Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent-a quite acceptable figure in those days-whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!

These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.

Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.

As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.

Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.

Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:

I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!

Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.

VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century..

Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.

It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together..

Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn..

Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.

The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.

Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.

The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.

Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.

Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.

To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting-in accordance with "sound" financial principles-for
the economy to revive by itself.

Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around..

Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.

Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses..

Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms-like Krupp, IG
Farben and the large automobile manufacturers-taking on new workers on
a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous, car sales
increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone. Employment in the
auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for full production,
with private industry leading the way.

The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.

This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.

Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.

Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.

Hitler would impose on everyone-powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike-his own concept of the organic social community. Only the loyal
collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all classes
and social groups.

Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.

By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.

Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.

A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.

The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.

One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations-and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.

Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.

Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.

In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.

Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).

This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."

The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."

No longer would either be exploited by the other-neither the worker by
arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the blackmail
of strikes for political ends.

Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community-no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional, arbitrary
power.

"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it..

In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution..

Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!

In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.

To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.

Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant..

Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.

In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:

When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.

Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.

After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.

Hitler could go into factories-something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past-and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."

During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.

But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era-five
times in five years.

For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.

To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.

Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.

The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:

1.The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it approves
of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may also
apply to a law.

2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as established
when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will apply as
well to a law modifying the Constitution.

3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be applied
in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the Distress
of the People and the Reich.

The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick..

From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?..

In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:

The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality-These measures did indeed break through
the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved the
material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler, pp.
434-435.)

Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 07.02.2012 23:16, schrieb Topaz:
>
> Leon Degrelle
>
> "We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028358/

This is a film from H.H Wells and called 'Things to Come'.

this film explains fascism very well, and where it it's flaw.

First you should understand, that the idea itself is not mean and
violent in itself. It is a problem of things, that are almost good and
almost well done. This is usually a disaster.

So the idea is, that in an ordered society it is less likely to bring
the evilness of common people into power. It would hinder aggression,
violence and wars.

This 'paradise' is achieved by a technocratic global elite. This 'black
shirts' want: * ... now we NEED ALL the power, to do this GIGANTIC
work..." (and create a new world order).

But the elite does not want to do the work (that is done by machines -
what includes people) and they do not want to create a paradise and what
they want, is not a paradise.

The mistake is, that absolute power is absolutely attractive for evil
minds and unless you able bread a race of saints, you cannot maintain
such a system.

So, what to do?

Possibly try a little less than everything. Let's start with simple
things like justice. And with a little less violence.

Actually I think the republic was a good idea, even if that had not
worked perfectly. But fascism was, what brought the real nightmare to
the world.


TH

(sorry, did not intend to 'snip' your post, but that line was a good
point to start with.)

[Topaz]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:28:55 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>This is a film from H.H Wells and called 'Things to Come'.
>
>this film explains fascism very well, and where it it's flaw.
>
>First you should understand, that the idea itself is not mean and
>violent in itself. It is a problem of things, that are almost good and
>almost well done. This is usually a disaster.

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.

>So the idea is, that in an ordered society it is less likely to bring
>the evilness of common people into power. It would hinder aggression,
>violence and wars.
>
>This 'paradise' is achieved by a technocratic global elite.

Fascism is obviously national, not global. And of course the best
people should be in charge. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:


"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of
the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it
or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through
their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been
provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for
existence.
"Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes
to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another
and one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true
in regard to the practical application of those inventions and
discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their
turn inventions also and consequently dependant on the creative
faculty of the individual. Even in purely theoretical work, which can
not be measured by a definite rule and is preliminary to all
subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the
individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the
majority organize or think; but always and in every case the
individual man, the person."

"Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to
prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the
contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that
ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the
principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of
creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This
common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to
rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and
in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should
rule who have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership."

"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
appearance only in the administration of the national community
especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
veritable decomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in
different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to
the persistent Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of
personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of
personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The
constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the
destructive principle of the Jews. They become the 'ferment of
decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sense, the
wreckers of human civilization.
"Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish
endeavor to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in
every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of
the masses. In politics the parliamentary form of government is the
expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it
everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest
governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the
trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the
employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry."

"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand
the fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should
merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt
the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete
with Marxism on its own ground."

"The best constitution and the best form of government is that

which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position
of dominant importance and influence in the community."

> This 'black
>shirts' want: * ... now we NEED ALL the power, to do this GIGANTIC
>work..." (and create a new world order).
>
>But the elite does not want to do the work (that is done by machines -
>what includes people)

So you think the national leaders should get a job flipping burgers on
the side. It would time away from making things great for us all.

>and they do not want to create a paradise and what
>they want, is not a paradise.

They do to want to create a paradise. You write worthless drivel.

>The mistake is, that absolute power is absolutely attractive for evil
>minds and unless you able bread a race of saints, you cannot maintain
>such a system.

Of course the wrong kind of people should not be in charge. And that
clearly happens in the USA where money talks.

>
>So, what to do?
>
>Possibly try a little less than everything. Let's start with simple
>things like justice. And with a little less violence.

Fascists had the largest amount of justice, and violence was only
fighting back when the Communists started it.

>
>Actually I think the republic was a good idea, even if that had not
>worked perfectly. But fascism was, what brought the real nightmare to
>the world.
>

The Jews control your media and your mind:


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."

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

[Thomas Heger]

Am 08.02.2012 23:01, schrieb Topaz:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:28:55 +0100, Thomas Heger<ttt...@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>> This is a film from H.H Wells and called 'Things to Come'.
>>
>> this film explains fascism very well, and where it it's flaw.
>>
>> First you should understand, that the idea itself is not mean and
>> violent in itself. It is a problem of things, that are almost good and
>> almost well done. This is usually a disaster.
>
>
> 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.

The Nazis didn't loose the war, but the Germans did.

If the assumption is correct, than Naziism has roots in the states and
is still alive. It is actually more vivid than ever and more dangerous.

You cannot think about Nazis as a nation. You must think about it as
human behaviour. Anybody can be a bad guy or a good guy.

Fascism is a very dangerous ideology. It is mainly a counter-reaction to
anarchy and violence.

So, to prevent a society to drift towards fascistic dictatorship, the
society should be less violent and more healthy, clean and friendly.

The 'bad guys' in the US do now all in their might to make the society
less healthy, friendly or peaceful.

One example is the problem of homeless people. A good governance would
try all possible means, to keep any person housed and at least under a
roof. But the US doesn't do that, but forces people to live on the streets.

This is very dangerous, since homeless people are inevitably dirty and
spread misery and disease.

There are also rumours about 'chemtrails', chips in vaccines, fluoride
in the water or toxins in the food. All this is bad for peoples health
and what is bad for health is bad for the society.

The USA is world-famous for promoting all sorts of violence:
video-games, movies, 'sports', weapons, wars...

They also try all they can to make people poorer, since poverty is more
likely a foundation for dictatorship. We have many examples. E.g. the
poor quality of American cars made them less competitive on the long run
and now all the related jobs are lost. So, why were these cars cheap
build, but needed a lot of gas?

All the industry is now lost and still the USA is too rich. But the
enemies are working on that subject.

And they are enemies of the American people and have been for a long
time. The USA was needed, as Germany was needed. But bad guys do not
make friends.

TH

[Topaz]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:24:47 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:


>

>The Nazis didn't loose the war, but the Germans did.

The good side lost the war, now the world is corrupt.

>
>If the assumption is correct, than Naziism has roots in the states and
>is still alive. It is actually more vivid than ever and more dangerous.

The Jews control your media and your mind.

>
>You cannot think about Nazis as a nation. You must think about it as
>human behaviour. Anybody can be a bad guy or a good guy.
>
>Fascism is a very dangerous ideology. It is mainly a counter-reaction to
>anarchy and violence.

The absence of fascism is very dangerous. Here is a quote from Mein

>So, to prevent a society to drift towards fascistic dictatorship, the
>society should be less violent and more healthy, clean and friendly.

Having a White nation would do that.

>
>The 'bad guys' in the US do now all in their might to make the society
>less healthy, friendly or peaceful.
>
>One example is the problem of homeless people. A good governance would
>try all possible means, to keep any person housed and at least under a
>roof. But the US doesn't do that, but forces people to live on the streets.

The US is like that because it isn't fascist.

>This is very dangerous, since homeless people are inevitably dirty and
>spread misery and disease.
>
>There are also rumours about 'chemtrails', chips in vaccines, fluoride
>in the water or toxins in the food. All this is bad for peoples health
>and what is bad for health is bad for the society.
>
>The USA is world-famous for promoting all sorts of violence:
>video-games, movies, 'sports', weapons, wars...
>
>They also try all they can to make people poorer, since poverty is more
>likely a foundation for dictatorship.

America is ruled by the Jews. That's why it's always involved in the
Middle East.

> We have many examples. E.g. the
>poor quality of American cars made them less competitive on the long run
>and now all the related jobs are lost. So, why were these cars cheap
>build, but needed a lot of gas?
>
>All the industry is now lost and still the USA is too rich. But the
>enemies are working on that subject.
>
>And they are enemies of the American people and have been for a long
>time. The USA was needed, as Germany was needed. But bad guys do not
>make friends.

The problems are caused the by lack of fascism.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 09.02.2012 23:30, schrieb Topaz:

>> The USA is world-famous for promoting all sorts of violence:
>> video-games, movies, 'sports', weapons, wars...
>>
>> They also try all they can to make people poorer, since poverty is more
>> likely a foundation for dictatorship.
>
> America is ruled by the Jews. That's why it's always involved in the
> Middle East.
>
>
>> We have many examples. E.g. the
>> poor quality of American cars made them less competitive on the long run
>> and now all the related jobs are lost. So, why were these cars cheap
>> build, but needed a lot of gas?
>>
>> All the industry is now lost and still the USA is too rich. But the
>> enemies are working on that subject.
>>
>> And they are enemies of the American people and have been for a long
>> time. The USA was needed, as Germany was needed. But bad guys do not
>> make friends.
>
> The problems are caused the by lack of fascism.

Well, I told you, the idea itself has merits. Only it had always
generated nightmares of unbelievable scale.

You certainly know a few fascist countries. The ancient Rome would fit
into this category, too. This is so long ago, we could discuss without
anger.

So lets talk about Rome and the good and bad sides of the Roman society.
'Fasces' is actually Latin and means a sort of axe in a bundle of rods.
It stands for the military power of the state over the population and
the violence, that is sometimes necessary to rule the masses.

But the Roman Emperors mad started as out of a republic into total
control, that was then directed against the Romans and Nero burned Rome
down.
They also had 'public torture', or that kind of entertainment, they had
in the Colosseum.

And the Roman Empire was of course extremely militaristic and conquered
the entire known world of that time and enslaved the inhabitants.

But the Romans have not alway won. At the end there mean foreign tribes,
that conquered Rome and tried to keep the military force intact - or at
least the possession of the slaves. That - of course - didn't work
("quot licet iovi non licet bovi!").

So we come to the conclusion, that the 'System Rome' is dangerous,
because it depends on the Republic and will fail, if too much power is
in too few hands. And slavery and torture are of course immoral, so
Roman means are 'bad', because based on slave labour, violence and theft.

You cannot clean fascism from theft, rape and torture, because that is,
what attracts people into that system. It is - generally speaking- scum,
that fascism attracts.

And it is about power and wealth, so it will not work without slaves.
That would be like a bank-robbery without money: it misses the whole point.


Actually you mix 'Judaism' and 'Zionism', as almost everybody does.
Zionism is actually Rome! Since Jews were slaughtered by Romans they
would never ever use any symbol like fasces, but Zionists do.
Rome is based and Greek culture (who have also invented the republic),
but among the Greek tribes we find the Philistines, that were pirates
and have settled in Palestine.

The Jews came from Egypt and were enslaved there. To that country they
came from Ethiopia, hence should be black people kind of. So the
history of Judaism is a heavy mixture of truth and fiction. I wouldn't
blame anything on the Jews, but most people call themself Jew now are
not in a genetic way related to Ethiopia. Doesn't matter, since
religions could be adopted by people all the time. Romans for example
turned to Christianity and possibly the Philistines to Judaism.
Most Jews are actually German people (The 'Ashkenazi') and still speak
medival German - with additions of ancient Polish.

So what? Possibly not blame a religion for violence. That is an insult
on the very idea of religion.

TH

[Topaz]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:53:49 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>

>Well, I told you, the idea itself has merits. Only it had always
>generated nightmares of unbelievable scale.

The Jews control your media and your mind.

by Theodore J. O'Keeled

Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
the Holocaust story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes
US troops discovered when they entered German concentration camps at
the close of World War II.

At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dorado, Munchausen, and other work and
detention camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead
and dying inmates, emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them
hair-raising stories of torture and slaughter, and backed up their
claims by showing the GIs crematory ovens, alleged execution gas
chambers, supposed implements of torture, and even shrunken heads and
lamp shades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin flayed
from dead inmates.

US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered
the atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the
Allied propaganda directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to
"document" what the GIs had found in the camps. Prominent newsmen
and politicians were flown in to see the harrowing evidence, while
the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the scenes for
posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murray reported, in tones of
horror, but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown,
and Dachau and
Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American
populace as names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history
of this planet.

For Americans, what was "discovered" at the camps -- the dead and the
diseased, the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of
torture and terror -- became the basis not simply of a transitory
propaganda campaign but of the conviction that, yes, it was true: the
Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most of them in lethal gas
chambers.

What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory
viewing for the vanquished populace of Germany, to "re-educate" the
German people by destroying their national pride and their will to a
united, independent national state, imposing in their place
overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and political impotence.
And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Luxemberg Tribunal
incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were
told about
Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the
Holocaust could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most
authenticated, one of the most proven historical episodes in the
human record.

A Different Reality

But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the
camps, American authorities were aware that the real story of the
camps was quite different from the one in which they were coaching
military public information officers, government spokesmen,
politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.

When American and British forces overran western and central Germany
in the spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with
discovering and securing any evidence of German war crimes.

Among them was Dr. Charles Larsen, one of America's leading forensic
pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate
General's Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team,
Dr. Larsen performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German
camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim
work at Dachau, he was
questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors.

Dr. Larsen's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What
we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that
is a hoax." And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larsen, who told his
biographer that to his knowledge he "was the only forensic pathologist
on duty in the entire European Theater" of Allied military operations,
confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered."

Typhus, Not Poison Gas

If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau,
Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or
deliberately starved? The answers to these questions are known as
well.

As Dr. Larsen and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief
cause of death at Dachau, Benson and the other camps was disease,
above all typhus, an old and terrible scourge of mankind that until
recently flourished in places where populations were crowded together
in circumstances where public health measures were unknown or had
broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded internment camps in
Germany at war's end, where, despite such measures as systematic
delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the dead, the
virtual
collapse of Germany's food, transport, and public health systems led
to catastrophe.

Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and
mortality in the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D.,
Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the
Harvard University School of Public Health, who was with US forces in
Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon reported in 1948 that "The outbreaks in
concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus
infection encountered in Germany." Dr. Gordon summarized the causes
for the outbreaks as follows:

Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an
astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travel ling this way and that,
homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them ...Germany was in
chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing
armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the
spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade, public utilities were
seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor,
housing was inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere
lacking. Still more important, a shifting of populations was occurring
such as few countries and few times have experienced.

Dr. Gordon's findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Baryon, today a
psychiatrist of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with
British forces as a young medical student in 1945. Baryon, who
volunteered to care for the diseased survivors, testified under sworn
oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985 that "Thousands of prisoners who
died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II
weren't deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of
diseases."

Dr. Baryon further testified that on entering the camp he had credited
stories of deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue
after inspecting the well equipped kitchens and the meticulously
maintained ledgers, dating back to 1942, of food cooked and dispensed
each day.

Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to
the contrary, no researcher has been able to document a German policy
of extermination through starvation in the German camps.

No 'Human Skin' Lamp shades

What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for
their tattoos, flayed to make lamp shades and handbags, or other
artifacts? What of the innumerable "torture racks," "meat hooks,"
whipping posts, gallows, and other tools of torment and death that are
reported to have abounded at every German camp? These allegations, and
even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet prosecutors, found their
way into the record at Luxemberg.

The lamp shade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Else Koch,
dubbed by journalists the "Bitch of Buchenwald," who was reported to
have furnished her house with objects manufactured from the tanned
hides of luckless inmates.

But General Luscious Clay, military governor of the US zone of
occupied Germany, who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in
Washington: "There is no convincing evidence that she [Else Koch]
selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins
or that she possessed any articles made of human skin." In an
interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about the material
for the infamous lamp shades: "Well, it turned out actually that it
was goat flesh. But
at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for
her to have gotten a fair trial." Else Koch hanged herself in a German
jail in 1967.

It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre
claims as to Nazi atrocities. That there were instances of German
cruelty, however, is clear from the testimony of Dr. Conrad Morgan, a
legal investigator attached to the Reich Criminal Police, whose
statements on the witness stand at Luxemberg have never been
challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr. Morgan
informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich
Himmler,
commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German
concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and corruption
on the part of camp personnel. As he explained in sworn testimony at
Luxemberg, Dr. Morgan investigated 800 such cases, resulting in more
than 200 convictions. Punishments included the death penalty for the
worst offenders, including Hermann Florescent, commandant of Public
(Mandated), and Karl Koch (Else's husband), commandant of Buchenwald.

While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical
punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and
it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of
the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual
beating. After all, throughout most of the war the camps were
important centers of industrial activity. The good health and morale
of the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is
evidenced in a January 1943 order issued by SS General Richard
Glucose, chief of the office that supervised the
concentration camps. It held the camp commanders "personally
responsible for exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical
strength of the detainee." Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?
US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly
ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the
worst offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the
guards but the prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same
stripe as those who populate US prisons today committed many
villainies, particularly when they held positions of authority, and
fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat their many
political enemies among the inmates, eliminated their foes with
Stalinist ruthlessness. Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egos
W. Fleck and Edward A. Metzenbaum, carefully investigated
circumstances in the camp before its liberation. In a detailed report
submitted to their superiors, they revealed, in the words of Alfred
Tombs, their commander, who wrote a preface to the report, "how the
prisoners themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi
terror."

Fleck and Metzenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and
Communists as follows:

The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist
Germans, had the power of life and death over all other inmates. They
could sentence a man or a group to almost certain death ... The
Communist trusties were directly responsible for a large part of the
brutalities at Buchenwald.

Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military
government in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an
article published in an American magazine shortly after the war.
Colonel Robinson wrote succinctly of the American investigators'
findings: "It appeared that the prisoners who agreed with the
Communists ate; those who didn't starved to death."

Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by
Elvis E. Spaceman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and
Detections for the US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of
Dachau. Spaceman, later a professor of history at San Beggarliness
Valley College in California, wrote in 1966 that at Dachau "the
prisoners were the actual instruments that inflicted the barbarities
on their fellow prisoners."

'Gas Chambers'

In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel
Edward J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at
Struthof-Natzweiler in Alpaca. They submitted their findings to their
superiors at the headquarters of the US 6th Army Group, which
subsequently forwarded their report to the US War Crimes Division.
While, significantly, the full text of their report has never been
published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of
Holocaust claims, that the two investigators were careful to
characterize equipment exhibited to them by French informants as a
"so-called lethal gas chamber," and to claim it was "allegedly used as
a lethal gas chamber." (Emphasis added)

Both the careful phraseology of the Horkheimer report, and its
effective suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the
confusion, and the blaring publicity that accompanied official reports
of alleged gas chambers at Dachau. At first, a US Army photo depicting
a GI gazing at a steel door marked with a skull and crossbones and the
German words for: "Caution! Gas! Mortal danger! Don't open!," was
identified as showing the murder weapon.

Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in
question was merely a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and
another alleged gas chamber, this one cunningly disguised as a shower
room, was exhibited to American congressmen and journalists as the
site where thousands breathed their last. While there exist numerous
reports in the press as to the operation of this second "gas chamber,"
no official report by trained Army investigators has yet surfaced to
reconcile such problems as the function of the shower heads: Were they
"dummies," or did lethal cyanide gas stream through them? (Each theory
has appreciable support in journalistic and
historiographers literature.)

As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps
liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of
propaganda about "gas chambers," "gas ovens," and the like, but so far
not a single detailed description of the murder weapon and its
function, not a single report of the kind that is mandatory for the
successful prosecution of any assault or murder case in America at
that time and today, has come to light.

Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly
decreed that there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany
after all. (We are now told that "gassing" and "extermination" camps
were located exclusively in what is now Poland, in areas captured by
the Soviet Red Army and made off-limits to western investigators.)

Dr. Martin Brisket of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History, which is funded by the German government, stated
categorically in a 1960 letter to the German weekly Die Zenith:
"Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or
other prisoners gassed." Professional "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal
stated in 1975 and again in 1993 that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil."

Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and
grieving world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of
lives, is now described in the brochure issued to tourists at the
modern Dachau "memorial site" in these words: "This gas chamber,
camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."

The Propaganda Intensifies

More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald
and other German camps, and trained American investigators established
the facts as to what had gone on in them, the government in
Washington, the entertainment media in Hollywood, and the print media
in New York continue to churn out millions of words and images
annually on the horrors of the camps and the infamy of the Holocaust.
Despite the fact that, with the exception of the defeated Confederacy,
no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and devastating
defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the politicians and
bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration
camps continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers
continue to distort, through ignorance or malice, the facts about the
camps.

Time for the Truth

It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal
the facts about Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time
they let the American public know how the inmates died, and how they
didn't die. It is time that the claims of mass murder by gassing are
clarified and investigated in the same manner as any other claims of
murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups have enjoyed as
the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it
is time to end the scapegoatism of other groups, including Germans,
eastern Europeans, the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime leadership of America and
Britain, either for their alleged role in the Holocaust or their
supposed failure to stop it.

Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have
the facts about the camps, facts they have a right to know, a right
that is fundamental to the exercise of their authority and their will
in the governance of their country. As citizens and as taxpayers,
Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have a basic right
and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that
are deemed by those in positions of power to be significant in
determining America's foreign and educational policy, as well as its
selection of past events to be memorialized in our
civic life.

Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the
civilized world. The truth will be decided only by recourse to the
facts, in the public forum: not by concealing the facts, denying the
truth, stonewalling reality. The truth will out, and it is time the
government of this country, and governments and international bodies
throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually
transpired in the German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945,
so that we may put paid to the lies, without fear or favor, and carry
out the work of reconciliation and renewal that is and must be the
granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples and of a peace
based on justice.

Summary
The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth
about the wartime German concentration camps have since been
corroborated by all subsequent investigators and can be summarized:

1.The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result
of a German policy of "extermination," but rather the result of
epidemics of typhus and other disease brought about largely by the
effects of Allied aerial attacks.
2.Stories of Nazi super criminals and sadists who turned Jews and
others into handbags and lamp shades for their private profit or
amusement were sick lies or diseased fantasies; indeed, the German
authorities punished corruption and cruelty on the part of camp
commanders and guards.
3.On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as
saints and martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the
truth; indeed, most of the brutalities inflicted on camp detainee were
the work of their fellow prisoners, in contravention of German policy
and German orders.
4.The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for
bathing camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they
were used to murder Jews or other human beings is a contemptible
fabrication. Orthodox historians and professional "Nazi-hunters" have
quietly dropped claims that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Buchenwald
and other camps in Germany. They continue, however, to keep silent
regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as to evade an
open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz and
the
other camps captured by the Soviets.


Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659

>You certainly know a few fascist countries. The ancient Rome would fit
>into this category, too. This is so long ago, we could discuss without
>anger.
>
>So lets talk about Rome and the good and bad sides of the Roman society.
>'Fasces' is actually Latin and means a sort of axe in a bundle of rods.
>It stands for the military power of the state over the population

"Over the population" is propaganda. The population is much better off
with leadership than allowing money to talk as in the USA.

Many people think they arrive at their own ideas all by themselves,
when in fact their ideas are usually made for them by Hollywood. Take
two movies that are anti-leadership propaganda, Gladiator, and
Braveheart.

In Gladiator they show a corrupt leader of Rome, but would it be
corrupt if Maximus was the leader? That would be much better than
having the lame senators running Rome. And of course in Braveheart the
Scots should have made William their leader. If he was the leader he
could have put the corrupt nobles in their place.

The purpose of the propaganda is to stop good people from wanting
power. The people who have the real power now, the bankers and the
media, are not threatened in the least by libertarians. But if there
was a leader that was really for the people they know they would be
put in their place.

In democracies money talks and those who can buy TV stations are
the rulers. These rulers don't even claim to be for anything but their
own profits and interests. People are much better off with a good
leader who has power above the money power.

> and
>the violence, that is sometimes necessary to rule the masses.

Sometimes it's necessary to put down the idiot communists, but the
start it.

>
>But the Roman Emperors mad started as out of a republic into total
>control, that was then directed against the Romans and Nero burned Rome
>down.

It was great for a long time. It went to pieces at the end no doubt
due to race mixing.

>They also had 'public torture', or that kind of entertainment, they had
>in the Colosseum.

The gladiators may have been criminals who were going to be executed
anyway.

>
>And the Roman Empire was of course extremely militaristic and conquered
>the entire known world of that time and enslaved the inhabitants.

That's your spin. Who knows how oppressive they really were. You would
diss any nation that had leadership. And without leadership the
moneybags are the real rulers, and they don't even pretend to be for
anything but their own profits.

>But the Romans have not alway won. At the end there mean foreign tribes,
>that conquered Rome and tried to keep the military force intact - or at
>least the possession of the slaves. That - of course - didn't work
>("quot licet iovi non licet bovi!").
>
>So we come to the conclusion, that the 'System Rome' is dangerous,

No, we come to the conclusion, Jewish control of the media is
dangerous.

>because it depends on the Republic and will fail, if too much power is
>in too few hands.

Nonsense. H.L. Mencken wrote "Democracy is the art of running the
circus from the monkey cage".

>And slavery and torture are of course immoral,

True

>so
>Roman means are 'bad', because based on slave labour, violence and theft.

Nonsense. Rome was one of the great civilizations of the past. Why
don't you diss Africa instead. The had head hunter cannibals. No doubt
the rest of the earth was inferior to Rome.

>
>You cannot clean fascism from theft, rape and torture, because that is,
>what attracts people into that system. It is - generally speaking- scum,
>that fascism attracts.

The Jews control your media and your mind. Figuratively speaking, you
have your head up a Jews aft end:

>And it is about power and wealth, so it will not work without slaves.
>That would be like a bank-robbery without money: it misses the whole point.

There is no doubt that slaves are not needed today. We have tractors
and other heavy equipment. No doubt it wasn't so simple back in the
days of Rome. But you are right it's good that slavery was abolished.
Although they had plenty of slaves in your beloved Africa. It's only
civilization that you object to.

>Actually you mix 'Judaism' and 'Zionism', as almost everybody does.
>Zionism is actually Rome! Since Jews were slaughtered by Romans they
>would never ever use any symbol like fasces, but Zionists do.
>Rome is based and Greek culture (who have also invented the republic),
>but among the Greek tribes we find the Philistines, that were pirates
>and have settled in Palestine.
>
>The Jews came from Egypt and were enslaved there. To that country they
>came from Ethiopia, hence should be black people kind of. So the
>history of Judaism is a heavy mixture of truth and fiction. I wouldn't
>blame anything on the Jews, but most people call themself Jew now are
>not in a genetic way related to Ethiopia. Doesn't matter, since
>religions could be adopted by people all the time. Romans for example
>turned to Christianity and possibly the Philistines to Judaism.
>Most Jews are actually German people (The 'Ashkenazi') and still speak
>medival German - with additions of ancient Polish.
>
>So what? Possibly not blame a religion for violence. That is an insult
>on the very idea of religion.

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.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 11.02.2012 02:20, schrieb Topaz:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:53:49 +0100, Thomas Heger<ttt...@web.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, I told you, the idea itself has merits. Only it had always
>> generated nightmares of unbelievable scale.
>
> The Jews control your media and your mind.

No!
That is a silly proposal. Actually I'm not Jewish and Jews could control
their own minds, not mine.

'The media' is a part of a vast industry, that is composed of many
aspects of communication. Magazines, books and newspapers, tv and
movies, photography and pop-music.

But that is not life and that is only a part of 'the media'.

People could and should make up their own mind and disallow others to
think for them.

Usually I think, that good friends give good advice. If the outcome is
not good, the advice wasn't such a good thing and I could ask that
'friend', what he had in mind.

In case anybody tries to harm, by helping others to their misery, that
is actually a crime. It is essential to help people to think with their
own brain and take responsibility for their own affairs, their own life
and what they believe.

That is nothing, that media can do and nobody should consider to trust
something, that uses thrill as entertainment.

And entertainment industry has nothing to do with religion (Jewish or
not). That is a business, like the production of cars.

You are not requested to believe in the nonsense, the typical
blockbuster tells. That is not even stupid.

TH

[joeturn]

On Feb 11, 12:29 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 11.02.2012 02:20, schrieb Topaz:
>

> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:53:49 +0100, Thomas Heger<ttt_...@web.de>

It was planned years ago.

http://www.awakeandarise.org/article/MyronFagan.htm

I dont push Mormanism(incest/child abuse) or any religion for that
matter I think they are all tools of the trade,but old Myron tells a
good story!

[Topaz]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:29:11 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>No!
>That is a silly proposal. Actually I'm not Jewish and Jews could control
>their own minds, not mine.

They tell you want to think and you obey because you don't know any
better.

>
>'The media' is a part of a vast industry, that is composed of many
>aspects of communication. Magazines, books and newspapers, tv and
>movies, photography and pop-music.
>
>But that is not life and that is only a part of 'the media'.

>People could and should make up their own mind and disallow others to
>think for them.
>
>Usually I think, that good friends give good advice. If the outcome is
>not good, the advice wasn't such a good thing and I could ask that
>'friend', what he had in mind.
>
>In case anybody tries to harm, by helping others to their misery, that
>is actually a crime. It is essential to help people to think with their
>own brain and take responsibility for their own affairs, their own life
>and what they believe.
>
>That is nothing, that media can do and nobody should consider to trust
>something, that uses thrill as entertainment.
>
>And entertainment industry has nothing to do with religion (Jewish or
>not). That is a business, like the production of cars.
>
>You are not requested to believe in the nonsense, the typical
>blockbuster tells. That is not even stupid.
>

[Thomas Heger]

Am 11.02.2012 08:08, schrieb joeturn:

>> You are not requested to believe in the nonsense, the typical
>> blockbuster tells. That is not even stupid.
>>
>> TH
>
> It was planned years ago.
>
> http://www.awakeandarise.org/article/MyronFagan.htm
>
> I dont push Mormanism(incest/child abuse) or any religion for that
> matter I think they are all tools of the trade,but old Myron tells a
> good story!

Well, interesting.

But, you know, planning is not always successful. Best example is 9-11.
If there was an evil plot in those events, than the outcome was not, was
intended. Possible it was planned what finally happened, but that would
be too weird to imagine.

So, there might be a 'bad guys conspiracy', and those have planned
their hidden agendas since centuries. But little differences in small
details could derail entire plots and things went wrong.

That is always like that: you make a plan - a really good one - and at
the end there are some idiots, that mess things up.

The 'illuminati' or whoever might have made plans and possibly there
were events in history, that the 'bad guys' have planned. But now things
move in unintended directions.

This is actually no big deal - for us common people - since we usually
can live without disasters. But for plans reaching over centuries it is
not good, if too many people speculate about 'secret societies',
'conspiracy' and so forth.

Since this was actually triggered by 9-11, so I cannot imagine this
would have been intended (at least not by the 'bad guys').

This would mean, that such plans are already derailed and since many
years. Now comes something different, and not even the Illuminate know,
what is coming.

No big deal, though, as long as no disaster is coming.

[joeturn]

Well try this one on for size.The old aircraft carrier that was
schedualed to be scraped next year(The USS Enterprise)was sent to the
Hormuz Straight in the Persian Gulf to be a sacrificial lamb.It will
be sunk on the Ides of March(15th,2012) and blamed on Iran.Iran
released news was said that if the ships returned to the Straight of
Hormuz to enforce the oil embargo,that nato sactioned them withit
would be considered an act of war against them.So now it is going to
be enforced because they want an excuse to go to war for the Iranian
oil.Mig 29s will be involved in sinking the wornout aircraft carrier
and the False Flag will enhance world war III. Its all part of the
depopulation project,the eight nuclear turbin engines aboard the USS
Enterprize will help in the population kill off.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

The ENTERPRISE is tied to a dock in Virginia. USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN passed
through the STRAITS (note spelling) yesterday and USS JOHN STENNIS is
also in the area.

I'm sure word has been passed to the Iranian Hitler Jr. that is the
should decide to try and sink our ships, they can kiss Qom goodbye.

--
"GOVERNMENT: If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait
until you see our solutions."--

Unknown

[Topaz]

US aid to Israel - Tax Dollars Soaked in Blood
by Susan Abulhawa

With 400 Palestinians killed and over 10,000 wounded (most of them
severely), the Israeli lobby is requesting a new pile of American tax
dollars ($450 million) for 'emergency aid.' Part of this money is
being requested to compensate Israel for withdrawing from a 20 year
occupation of Southern Lebanon.

Excuse me!

Israel invaded Lebanon, used the world banned cluster bombs to kill
20,000 civilians (stories that would make your skin crawl), destroyed
the countries infrastructure and occupied its people for two decades.
Now they want to be compensated for finally obeying international law
and getting out of land where they have no business being? If anyone
ought to be compensated, it's the Lebanese people. At any rate, its
not the responsibility of the American tax payer to pay up.

Israel is an outlaw state in violation of numerous UN Resolution and
various tenets of international laws. Congress should stop behaving as
though we're some kind of Israeli colony bowing to her every whim.
Israel, whose population is 0.1% of the total world population gets
roughly one-third of all US foreign aid. In addition to the
$5,000,000,000 in aid, Israel enjoys the benefits of a whole lot more
US tax payer money. For example, there are special "gifts" like the
Arrow Missile and Levi Fighter, totaling $1.3 billion. Tax payers must
also pay interest on money borrowed for Israel's grants-- about $500
million per year. Private donations to Israel are tax-deductible and
total about $1 billion annually. This does not include the Israeli
bonds sold in the US for $500 million each year.

Despite US restrictions on using money to build illegal settlements on
Palestinian land, Israel has spent hundreds of millions of our dollars
importing Jews from across the world, confiscating Palestinian land
and demolishing their homes to make way for brand new settlements for
the new arrivals.

That's not all. The US also pays Egypt $2.1 billion/year for signing a
peace treaty with Israel and is asked to pay umpteen billions of tax
payer dollars every time Israel notions that is will consider a
pull-back from occupied territories. For example, during peace talks
with Syria, Israel demanded that the US foot a bill of $17 billion for
its withdrawal from the Golan Heights, where it has illegally been
occupying Syrian land and stealing Syrian resources for over 33 years.
Basically, the US taxpayers have to pay Israel in order for Israel to
obey international law and respect the sovereignty of other nations.

At the same time Congress cut the welfare budget by $5.3 billions, aid
to Israel that year was $5.2 billion. Indeed, as filmmaker Tom Hayes
said: "from the mouths of America's poor onto the necks of
Palestinians."

The so called "peace process" is sure to cost us yet more tens of
billions of dollars in payment for Israel's insatiable appetite for
Arab soil and its unrelenting thievery of other's resources. Try
getting an iota of that money for your state. You're lucky if you can
hold onto school lunch programs.

Of course, some of that money trickles back to the US in the form of
campaign funding. These campaign "donations" account for Israel's
power over US foreign policies.

So, what has Israel done for us?

Israel has spied on the US. By the way, a contribution to the 'free
Jonathan Pollard' fund is tax deductible. According to the CIA, Israel
commits industrial espionage against American businesses. They have
exported sensitive US technology to other countries, some of which are
potentially hostile to the U.S., in direct contravention of U.S. law.

In 1967 Israel attacked the USS Liberty killing 34 American crewmen
and wounding 171. Despite thirty three years of unrelenting pleas from
the survivors of that ship, Congress will not afford our servicemen
the
decency of an investigation and has refused to hold a Congressional
hearing for an act of aggression against Americans in a time of peace
despite astounding evidence. Maybe they will when there are no more
survivors to speak and the only testimonies will come from
Israeli-chosen "witnesses."
http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty/

Israel has a healthy economy and gets piles of money and other aid
from Germany every year. If this US-Israel marriage is indeed in our
best interest then why do they need such a strong well-funded lobby in
our Congress?

Continuing to be the lone veto that keeps the international community
from investigating Israel's breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention
cannot possibly be in our best interest. Patting Israel on the back
while the rest of the world condemns it's flagrant violations of human
rights does not mesh with the principles on which this country was
founded. Retired Navy Admiral, Thomas Moorer, was quoted in a book by
Paul Findley, former congressman from Illinois, as saying "I've never
seen an president- I don't care who he is- stand up to [the Israelis].
It just boggles your mind*.If the American people understood what a
grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in
arms."

[joeturn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSb-jShs2Zo

[Thomas Heger]

Am 01.02.2012 14:08, schrieb Padraigh ProAmerica:
> WHat the hell are you babbling about?
>
> Will Rogers was opopular in the 1920's and early 1930's, and died in a
> plane crash in Alaska.
>
> The Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1911.
>
> Wil Rogers was a humorist who had nothing tom do with Nazi Germany.
>
> You need help. Let your family do an intervention before you hurt
> yourself.
>
> --
Boy Scouts are actually a British invention, of boer war 'hero' Lord
Baden-Powell

http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/aug07.shtml

"This month we celebrate the centenary of the Boy Scouts, and also
highlight other youth organisations. The Boy Scouts were established as
an organisation in 1908 by Sir Robert (later Lord) Baden-Powell
(1857-1941), a cavalry officer and hero of the Boer War (1899-1902)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell

The Boer war is actually, where concentration camps were first used in
mass murder.(And that is also the place where we find some other
personal of WWII, namely Winston Churchill.)
That kind of manslaughter was invented by the honourable Englishman Lord
Kitchener.

TH