what are they singing?
LIBERATOR
At 9:18 they start to sing.
I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
And the speech was "Hitler means for us to be classless and non-
prejudicial, knowing no class distinctions", so the song likely is
something based on this spirit.
anyone speak German who could tell me what they're singing?
Then comparing to what Jewish controlled Allied intelligence tells us,
Hitler brainwashed the children of Germany. Well, do they looked
brainwashed, or loyal to each other? And how could a leader get kids
in their teeny bopper years be so happy and expressive such as they
are in this video?
Perhaps - no social problems existing whatsoever, no debt and no
unemployment and no poverty and no suffering anywhere within Germany,
is why these kids are so loyal and so happy - and add to it no matter
what it is they want to do for a profession, there is going to be a
job for them guaranteed to do that work, whatever it is. A surplus of
jobs available in all professions, makes the true spirit of freedom
reality. Whatever ones dream was, it was a reality in Hitler Germany.
The Hitler Homily video (where all those German babes were shown heh
heh), showed the supreme entertainment complex of Germany enabling any
kid a dream in acting or singing, or literature.
How does that compare to the USA today?
And how could Spielberg carry the beliefs he does when seeing a speech
like this, where altruism was Hitlers actions towards others?
Spielberg thinks he's a divine servant of goodwill - quite the
opposite is true. He's off his rocker....
Eugene Holman
LIBERATOR <spy.e...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JerbEh0CfKM
>
> At 9:18 they start to sing.
>
> I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
>
> And the speech was "Hitler means for us to be classless and non-
> prejudicial, knowing no class distinctions", so the song likely is
> something based on this spirit.
>
> anyone speak German who could tell me what they're singing?
<deletions>
They are singing the refrain of the *Fahnenlied* ('Banner song'), the
Hitler Youth Anthem, composed by Baldur von Schirach, a German-American(!)
who was the leader of the Hitlerjugend. For information about von
Schirach, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur_von_Schirach.
You can hear the first verse + refrain at http://eri.ca/refer/vorwarts.MP3.
The words of the refrain being sung in the video are:
Uns're Fahne flattert uns voran.
In die Zukunft ziehen wir Mann für Mann
Wir marschieren für Hitler
Durch Nacht und durch Not
Mit der Fahne der Jugend
Für Freiheit und Brot.
Uns're Fahne flattert uns voran,
Uns're Fahne ist die neue Zeit.
Und die Fahne führt uns in die Ewigkeit!
Ja die Fahne ist mehr als der Tod!
Translation (EH):
Our banner is fluttering before us.
We are entering the future, man for man
We are marching for Hitler
Through night and through need
With the banner of the youth
For freedom and livelihood (lit. 'bread').
Our banner is fluttering before us.
Our banner represents the new era.
And the banner is leading us into eternity!
Yes, the banner means more to us than death!
For most of the young men singing that song at this 1934 rally, the last
two lines of the refrain were to come painfully true by May 8, 1945.
Baldur Von Schirach (1907 - 1974), earlier an ardent believer in Hitler,
began to oppose him as he gradually found out about the fate of the Jews
whose deportation from Vienna to ghettos and concentration camps in Poland
was one of his reponsibilities as Governor and Gauleiter of the city.
At the Nuremberg Trials von Schirach was able to provide convincing
evidence that he had protested to Martin Bormann about the inhumane
treatment of the Jews. On October 1, 1946 he received a twenty-year
sentence for crimes against humanity, which he served in full, being
released from Spandau Prison on October 1, 1966.
Source: http://www.annefrank.dk/Schirach/new_page_3.htm
<quote>
<deletions>
In 1940, Baldur von Schirach volunteered and fought with the German Army
at the front, and he won the Iron Cross in France. Later that year - in
August 1940 - he was appointed Governor and Gauleiter of Vienna. During
his tenure 185,000 Jews were deported from Vienna to the ghettos in
Poland, and in a speech on 15 September 1942 he mentioned their
deportation as a "contribution to European culture."
Later during the war von Schirach pleaded for a moderate treatment of the
eastern European peoples and criticized the conditions in which Jews were
being deported. He fell into disfavor in 1943 but remained at his post.
Baldur von Schirach was captured by Allied troops at the end of the war.
He was brought before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and
sentenced on 1 October 1946 to 20 years' imprisonment for crimes against
humanity. The Tribunal found that he, while not originating the policy of
deporting Jews from Vienna, participated in the deportation.
During the trial Baldur von Schirach underwent a change of heart,
recognizing that he had misled German youth and contributed to poisoning a
whole generation. He stated: "I put my morals to the side when, out of
misplaced faith in the Führer, I took part in this action. I did it. I
cannot undo it."
With regard to the death camp Auschwitz he said: "It was the most
all-encompassing and diabolical genocide ever committed by man .. Adolf
Hitler gave the order .. Hitler and Himmler together started this crime
against humanity which will remain a blot on our history for centuries .."
Baldur von Schirach was released from Spandau Prison on 1 October 1966
after precisely 20 years of imprisonment. The former leader of the Hitler
Youth was destined to live for less than 10 years - he died in Kröv on 8
August, 1974, almost totally blind as a result of an eye disease.
</quote>
I hope that helped.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
peter griffin
"LIBERATOR" <spy.e...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message news:1178591405.7...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JerbEh0CfKM
>
> At 9:18 they start to sing.
>
> I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
It is, it's about gay Nazi butt sex. Right up your alley.
Dr Hfuhruhurr
> "LIBERATOR" <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote in messagenews:1178591405.7...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JerbEh0CfKM
>
> > At 9:18 they start to sing.
>
> > I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
>
> It is, it's about gay Nazi butt sex. Right up your alley.
And here's your own little alley that gives you a rather singular
access to Libby's retarded rants.
*PLONK*
Doc
Max C. Webster III
> "LIBERATOR" <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
>> I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
>
> It is, it's about gay Nazi butt sex. Right up your alley.
Don't tease him like that. It's the Schnitzelbank song from
Animaniacs.
- Max -
=======
Oh, du schöne Schnitzelbank!
As Americans we must always remember that we all
have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous,
powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course,
to the federal government. - Dave Barry
Dr Hfuhruhurr
> "peter griffin" <i...@retahded.com> done said:
>
> > "LIBERATOR" <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> >> I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
>
> > It is, it's about gay Nazi butt sex. Right up your alley.
>
> Don't tease him like that. It's the Schnitzelbank song from
> Animaniacs.
I like Haben Sie Gehort Das Deutsche Band
or Du bist mein sofa.
Doc
Max C. Webster III
Aber beklecker nicht das Sofa, Sofa!
- Max -
=======
Fick mich, du miserabler hurensohn
Dr Hfuhruhurr
> Dr Hfuhruhurr <doc.hfuhruh...@gmail.com> done said:
>
> > "Max C. Webster III" <maxx2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> "peter griffin" <i...@retahded.com> done said:
>
> >>> "LIBERATOR" <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> >>>> I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
>
> >>> It is, it's about gay Nazi butt sex. Right up your alley.
>
> >> Don't tease him like that. It's the Schnitzelbank song from
> >> Animaniacs.
>
> > I like Haben Sie Gehort Das Deutsche Band
> > or Du bist mein sofa.
>
> Aber beklecker nicht das Sofa, Sofa!
Bis es spritzt, spritzt, spritzt, spritzt, Feuer!
Doc
Chris C. Larson
Libby:
I think that they are singing "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" by the
Rolling Stones.
Topaz
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absence
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas chamber"
which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually built by the
allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V are in
their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully
admit that it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical
evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who
died from gas have been found. The Communists were the first to enter
the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up
the buildings? Then they could claim that these demolished buildings
used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders from Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling
still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude
through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the British newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at
Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he
refused to
cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He
came in the winter
of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls
Mr. Jones. Two
other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell
to help break
him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and
day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down
his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise
he was made
to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three
days and
nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full
confession to
the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomery Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920 "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the
membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews
comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan,
The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
stewie
"Dr Hfuhruhurr" <doc.hfu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178625529.0...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Wow, you sure showed me.
> Doc
>
John Nichel
Showed you that you're worse than Libby himself? Yes, yes he did. At
least that nutbag keeps the same name so he stays in our killfiles.
--
Blame Britney Spears and her horribly disgusting vagina.
RAGLAN...@aol.com
> In article <1178591405.772038.293...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> LIBERATOR <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JerbEh0CfKM
>
> > At 9:18 they start to sing.
>
> > I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
>
> > And the speech was "Hitler means for us to be classless and non-
> > prejudicial, knowing no class distinctions", so the song likely is
> > something based on this spirit.
>
> > anyone speak German who could tell me what they're singing?
>
>
> They are singing the refrain of the *Fahnenlied* ('Banner song'), the
> Hitler Youth Anthem, composed by Baldur von Schirach, a German-American(!)
> who was the leader of the Hitlerjugend. For information about von
>
> You can hear the first verse + refrain athttp://eri.ca/refer/vorwarts.MP3.
> his reponsibilities. At the Nuremberg Trials von Schirach was able to
> provide convincing evidence that he had protested to Martin Bormann about
> crimes against humanity, which he served in full.
>
> I hope that helped.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Holman:
Do you think Schirach deserves a post gratuitous medal for mentioning
the inhumane treatment of the Jews to Borman? What was the exact
nature of that; I may have missed it. Maybe he should be entered into
the hall of righteous gentiles. Despite Schirach's complaint he
continued to help mold a youth who worshipped Hitler. Furthermore, his
antisemitism was early on. My position is youth should take
responsibility; like the White Rose did. From what I read of the
transcript of Schirach you provided he claimed to take full
responsibility but German youth, although impressionable and guided by
elders, also bears a responsibility. There are just some crimes I
believe can never be atoned through the legal judicial systems.
Genocide is one of them. And it doesn't manner if it is a willing
executioner or a paper pushing bureacrat.
Sincerely,
Michael Ragland
Eugene Holman
RAGLAN...@AOL.COM wrote:
<deleions>
>
> Holman:
> Do you think Schirach deserves a post gratuitous medal for mentioning
> the inhumane treatment of the Jews to Borman?
I think that he deserves recognition for having had the courage to
conclude that the cause that he had devoted most of his life to promoting
was morally corrupt, and than act upon this decision, a desision that
could have meant sumamry executiobn or being sent to die in a punishment
batallion on the eastern front. This was also recognized by the IMT, which
gave him a far lighter sentence than that given to fellow Nazi
propagandist and brain-washer Julius Streicher.
> What was the exact
> nature of that; I may have missed it. Maybe he should be entered into
> the hall of righteous gentiles. Despite Schirach's complaint he
> continued to help mold a youth who worshipped Hitler. Furthermore, his
> antisemitism was early on. My position is youth should take
> responsibility; like the White Rose did.
It is extremely difficult to take responsibility when the regime has a
monopoly on information. The members of the White Rose eventually tried to
take responsibility, but they, literally, lost their heads for doing so.
> From what I read of the
> transcript of Schirach you provided he claimed to take full
> responsibility but German youth, although impressionable and guided by
> elders, also bears a responsibility.
They do indeed. There are certain things that everybody should recognize
as wrong and immoral. But the degree to which a totally brainwashed German
youth can be held responsible for its actions can be debated. Even the
song they are signing that began this thread contains the message that the
Nazi flag, and by implication all that it symbolizes, is more important
than their lives:
<deletions>
> Und die Fahne führt uns in die Ewigkeit!
> Ja die Fahne ist mehr als der Tod!
>
> Translation (EH):
<deletions>
> And the banner is leading us into eternity!
> Yes, the banner means more to us than death!
If you bombard kids with such a message from the time they learn to speak,
you have to expect that it will have consequences.
> There are just some crimes I
> believe can never be atoned through the legal judicial systems.
> Genocide is one of them. And it doesn't manner if it is a willing
> executioner or a paper pushing bureacrat.
I agree with you. However, a distinction has to be made between a person
such as the unrepentant Julius Streicher, who incited Germans to genocide
as his profession, and a person such as Baldur von Schirach, whose
professional duties included preparing young Germans to accept Streicher's
propaganda unquestioningly *until* he had a moment of realization that
what he was doing was wrong and took a considerable risk by making his
realization known to people in a position to do something about it.
Baldur von Schirach was no "righteous gentile", but he was the one-eyed
king in the land of the blind. And before we dismiss the Nazis as a band
of uniquely perverse genocidal brain-washers, let us not forget the
contribution that the Christian church has made to brainwashing people to
commit genocide. North America was ethnically cleansed of most of its
indigenous population by Bible-thumping Christians who thought that thry
had a divine right to steal land, kill people, and plow under the cultures
of the godless heathen. The Holocaust of some 10,000,000 Congolese by the
Belgians between about 1895 and 1912 was carried out by devout Roman
Cartholics [http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocong.htm].
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Joe Bruno
> In article <1178924030.564254.115...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Let us not forget the Crusades of European knights during the Middle
Ages, one subject that fascinates me endlessly. They were supposedly
on a Godly mission to open the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims, sent
there by Pope Urban II himself. However, once they were out of contact
with religious authority, they committed numerous murders and rapes.
Topaz
"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.
Joe Bruno
> Leon Degrelle
> "We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
> Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
>
<deleted stupid Nazi horsedung posted by the Vangelbot>
Who the fuck cares what that degenerate said?
He was a lying, yellow, chickenshit cocksucker and so are you.
Benjamin Cramer
"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1179197640....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, you fucktard.
>
Eugene Holman
Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
<deletions>
> >
> > He was a lying, yellow, chickenshit cocksucker and so are you.
>
> PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, you fucktard.
1. That Hitler was a master of lying as a political strategy is known to
everyone even superficially familiar with his career and philosophy.
Hitler himself claimed that telling whoppers was a good strategy for
manipulating a population. He even had a theory about it:
Source: http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/387/12507_BushSatan.html
<quote>
<deletions>
As Hitler pointed out, ordinary people will recognize when politicians
tell łlittle˛ lies, because they often hear or tell such lies themselves.
But there is an innate, perhaps naive, belief that politicians will not
lie about events of great magnitude. So while skepticism greets a
President denying an extramarital affair, it does not greet a
corruptly-appointed dictator who lies about WMDs, or who even jokes about
these lies.
<deletions>
</quote>
2. That Hitler was a coward, who would rather kill his newly wed wife, his
dog, and himself, rather than take responsibility for his destruction of
Germany is known to everyone even superficially familiar with the last ten
days of his life.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler
<quote>
<deletions>
Standard account of Hitler's death
Adolf Hitler fled to the Führerbunker on January 16, 1945, where he
presided over a rapidly disintegrating Third Reich as the Allies advanced
from both east and west. By late April, Soviet forces had entered Berlin
and were battling their way to the centre of the city where the
Chancellery was located.
On April 22, 1945, Hitler had an apparent nervous breakdown during one of
his military situation conferences, and admitted defeat was imminent and
Germany would lose the war. He expressed his intent to commit suicide, but
Joseph Goebbels convinced him to wait. Hitler asked physician Werner Haase
to recommend a method of suicide that would ensure his death. Haase
suggested combining a dose of cyanide with a gunshot to the head.
Hitler had a supply of cyanide capsules which he obtained through the SS.
Meanwhile on April 28 Hitler learned of Heinrich Himmler's attempt to
independently negotiate a peace treaty. Hitler considered this treason and
began to show signs of paranoia, expressing worries the cyanide capsules
he had received through Himmler's SS were fake. To verify the capsules'
potency he ordered Dr. Haase to test them on his dog Blondi and the test
was successful.
Hitler, having dictated his last will and testament to secretary Traudl
Junge, signed them at 04:00 on April 29. Shortly after midnight on April
29, 1945, Hitler married Eva Braun in a small civil ceremony in a map room
within the bunker complex, before finally retiring to bed at around 04:00.
Shortly after noon on April 30 Hitler had a short meeting with Bormann
before eating a small lunch consisting of spaghetti with a light sauce.
Hitler and Eva Braun then said their personal farewells to members of the
Führerbunker staff and fellow occupants, including the Goebbels family,
Bormann, the secretaries, and several military officers. At around 14:30,
as Soviet forces raised their banner over the neighbouring Reichstag,
Adolf and Eva Hitler went into Hitler's personal study.
Some witnesses later reported hearing a loud gunshot at around 15:30 (the
Goebbels' young son is said to have declared, "A direct hit!" thinking it
was a bomb overhead). After waiting a few minutes, Hitler's valet, Heinz
Linge, with Bormann at his side, opened the door to the study. Linge later
stated he immediately noted a scent of burned almonds in the small study,
a common observation made in the presence of prussic acid, a form of
cyanide. The Hitlers were both sitting on a small sofa, Eva on the left,
Adolf to the right. Eva's body slumped away from Adolf's. Hitler appeared
to have shot himself at right temple, with an exit wound towards the top,
left side of his head, with a 7.65 mm pistol which lay at his feet. Blood
was dripping from Adolf's temple/chin and had made a large stain on the
right arm of the sofa and pool on the floor/carpet. Eva had no visible
physical wounds and Linge assumed she had poisoned herself.
<deletions>
</quote>
3. That Hitler was a sexual deviant is known to everyone even
superficially familiar with information available about his sexuality.
Source:
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm
<quote>
<deletions>
Adolf, the Boy Prostitute
In Germanyąs National Vice, Samuel Igra wrote that as a young man
Hitler łhad been a male prostitute in Vienna and Munich˛ (Igra:67).
Lending credence to this is the fact that for quite a long time Hitler
łchose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many
homosexuals˛ (Langer:192). That łflophouse˛ was the Meldemannstrasse
Hostel. Hitlerąs long-time łgay˛ friend Ernst Hanfstaengl identified this
residence as ła place where elderly men went in search of young men for
homosexual pleasures˛ (Machtan:56). łIt was an open secret at the
beginning of the 20th century,˛ adds Machtan, łthat municipal hostels for
homeless males were hubs of homosexual activity...[where many young men]
kept themselves afloat by engaging in prostitution. Hitler spent over
three years in this environment˛ (Machtan:51).
This would help to explain Hitlerąs close relationships to his
purportedly homosexual patrons Dietrich Eckart and Karl Haushofer. Rector
writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called łDer Schoen Adolf˛
(łthe handsome Adolf˛) and that later his looks łwere also to some extent
helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Roehmąs circle of wealthy
gay friends˛ (Rector:52).
But Hitler was apparently not involved with homosexuality solely to
survive financially. Even in his pre-Nazi years, most of Hitlerąs reputed
homosexual encounters were consensual meetings in which no money changed
hands. Machtan suggests that each of Hitlerąs longer-term relationships in
his youth -- with Reinhold Hanisch, August Kubizek, Rudolf Hausler and
Ernst Hanfstaengl -- were homosexual łlove affairs.˛
There are numerous other incidents (łone night stands˛) in which
Hitler was purported to have been the solicitor and not the solicited one.
Eugen Dollman, former member of Himmlerąs staff and one-time Hitler
interpreter, cited testimonies from the files of the Munich vice squad in
which a series of young men identified Hitler as the man who had łpicked
them up˛ on the streets for homosexual relations (Machtan:135ff). Dollman
himself was also homosexual (ibid.).
Additional allegations addressed homosexual conduct by Hitler during
the first World War. The so-called łMend Protocol,˛ a document prepared by
German military intelligence under Admiral Canaris, contains the testimony
of Hans Mend. Considered highly credible, Mend had this to say about
Hitler:
Meanwhile, we had gotten to know Hitler better. We noticed that he never
looked at a woman. We suspected him of homosexuality right away, because
he was known to be abnormal in any case. He was extremely eccentric and
displayed womanish characteristics which tended in that direction....In
1915 we were billeted in the Le Febre brewery at Fournes. We slept in the
hay. Hitler was bedded down at night with łSchmidl,˛ his male whore. We
heard a rustling in the hay. Then someone switched on his electric
flashlight and growled, łTake a look at those two nancy boys.˛ I myself
took no further interest in the matter (Ibid:68)
<deletions>
</quote>
Source: http://www.kimel.net/hitjew.html
<quote>
<deletions>
Hitler's abnormal sexual development is an important factor in his
behavior. "It is well known that Hitler's sex life was bizarre. As a young
man, he repressed direct sexuality and projected his erotic energy in
grandiose fantasies. In his thirties, he was consistently attracted to
young childlike women who clearly resembled his mother. They could,
therefore, be more easily dominated than mature women but at the same time
serve as a symbolically mother figure. Waite's review of the material
concerning Hitler's relationship with women makes it quite clear that he
had an intense, unusual effect on them, probably because of his odd sexual
demands. ....Virtually every one of at least several young women who were
close to Hitler attempted or succeeded in committing suicide.
<deletions>
</quote>
He is not known to have been a cocksucker, except in the figurative sense,
but his megafarts were legendary.
Source:
http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Diagnosis-Destructive-Fritz-Redlich/dp/0195057821
<quote>
<deletions>
The reader does learn a great deal about the mundane details of Hitler's
health (including his ongoing problems with flatulence, which Dr. Redlich
does not quite connect to his vegetarian diet), about the doctors who
treated him, and about some of the medical practices still used in the
1940s (including leeches).
<deletions>
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Joe Bruno
> "Joe Bruno" <b...@indystart.com> wrote in message
any common sense. I don't have to prove it and I can express it
anytime I want to.
It's just as much my opinion as was my statement to Ron Jacobsen that
you are a "Mudak". You're also a lying chickenshit psychopath and
that's my opinion, too.
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
o·pin·ion
/əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-
yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal
Topaz
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
Joe Bruno
You say Hitler was very dedicated to the truth?
"Hitler"????? Isn't he the guy who guarranteed the neutrality of
Holland shortly before invading it?
Isn't he the guy who signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR
shortly before invading it?
Isn't he the guy who signed a treaty with the Vatican several days
before arresting numerous Catholic priests and charging them with all
sorts of good shit?
Isn't he the guy who collected money from German workers for
Volkswagens to be produced, then kept the money and never delivered
any automobiles to any of them?
Are we discussing the same Hitler, O Mighty Robotic One?
I hear a rather intense squeak coming from your direction. Did you
forget to oil
your joints this morning? I recommend you stop using porkfat for that
purpose and replace it with WD-40 instead.
Topaz
"That young girl riding on her bicycle - she must know that on the
day the Russians come she will probably be raped by a dozen soldiers.
When do they come? In days? In weeks? That, we have not told the
Germans. She has a good face - nicely dressed in old but clean and
brightly colored garments - like the daughter of a middle class
American family. I realize that we Americans are holding her at
Dessau. She cannot flee to safety.
We will not let her pass our sentries on the roads. We are turning her
and thousands of
others like her over to the Soviet soldiers for their sport. I feel
ashamed."
p.961
"German children look in through the window. We have more food than
we need, but regulations prevent giving it to them. It is difficult to
look at them. I feel ashamed of myself, of my people, as I eat and
watch those children. They are not to blame for the war. They are
hungry children. What right have we to stuff ourselves while they look
on - well-fed men eating, leaving unwanted food on plates, while
hungry children look on."
Berlin Correspondent, The Times, September 10th, 1945
"...Another small boy turned out of Danzig had a scrawled postcard
attached to him stating that his soldier father was long since missing
and that his mother and two sisters had died of hunger."
At this time, Denmark, formerly occupied by the Germans as a means
of denying the allies a North Sea bridgehead was bursting at the seams
with surplus food and was pleading with the allies to put it to good
use. It was refused.
Joe Bruno
PSSST!
Who started the war?
Who invaded every country in continental Europe except for Spain,
Sweden and Switzerland?
Who sent troops to North Africa, too?
Who declared war on the United States?
Who bombed London, even though it had almost no military value?
After he was no longer able to bomb Britain because his Luftwaffe was
defeated, who sent flying bombs(V-1 and V-2) across the Channel to
kill as many British citizens as he could?
Joe Bruno
The command and control centers for the RAF and Royal Navy were in
London
but they were undergound. Looks like the Brits were way ahead of him.
Eugene Holman
<mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
> Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
> in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
> Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
> context:
<deletions>
€ One need only reflect upon the Munich Agreement, signed by Hitler on
September 29, 1938, and flagrantly violated less than six months later on
March 15, 1939, to know what a liar Hitler was.
€ The Poles, invaded, occupied, and socially decapitated by Hitler's
armies on the basis of a fabricated border incident at Gleiwitz on
September 1, 1939, learned what a craven liar Hitler was.
€ The Soviets, who signed a non-agression pact with Hitler on August 23,
1939, learned less than two years later, on June 22, 1941, how mendacious
and deceitful Hitler was.
€ The Jews of Europe, who Hitler blamed for capitalism, socialism,
communism, Judaism, Christianity, Germany's defeat in World War I,
double-entry book-keeping, war-profiteering, clannishness, economic
competition, conspicuous consumption, hyperinflation, disloyalty,
monopolization of the best jobs, talentedness in the arts and sciences,
opinion-peddling, abstract art, atonal music, schmaltzy literature,
boulevard journalism, pornography, prostitution, deficit financing,
charging interest on loans, defiling blonde-haired Aryan maidens, and
genocidal intentions towards the German nation, learned that Hitler was
the unchallenged world master of lying.
€ Hitler liked the public to think that he was a vegetarian even though
his favorite dish when dining out was stuffed squab.
€ I hasten to add that Hitler cultivated a public image of himself as a
tea-totaling, vegetarian, asexual ascetic, singularly and exclusively
devoted to the Reich. In actual fact he frequently drank beer and wine,
had a penchant for stuffed squab and Bavarian sausages, and kept a
mistress, Eva Braun, whom he forced to act and dress in public as though
she were one of his house servants.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Joe Bruno
> In article <g8gk435p99olstjgjqv0895punlqgpe...@4ax.com>, Topaz
>
> <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
> > Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
> > in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
> > Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
> > context:
>
> <deletions>
>
> € One need only reflect upon the Munich Agreement, signed by Hitler on
> September 29, 1938, and flagrantly violated less than six months later on
> March 15, 1939, to know what a liar Hitler was.
>
> € The Poles, invaded, occupied, and socially decapitated by Hitler's
> armies on the basis of a fabricated border incident at Gleiwitz on
> September 1, 1939, learned what a craven liar Hitler was.
>
> € The Soviets, who signed a non-agression pact with Hitler on August 23,
> 1939, learned less than two years later, on June 22, 1941, how mendacious
> and deceitful Hitler was.
>
> € The Jews of Europe, who Hitler blamed for capitalism, socialism,
> communism, Judaism, Christianity, Germany's defeat in World War I,
> double-entry book-keeping,
Double-entry bookeeping was invented by an Italian, although no one
seems to know his name.
Eugene Holman
In article <1179294920....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Joe
Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 10:18=C2=A0pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > In article <g8gk435p99olstjgjqv0895punlqgpe...@4ax.com>, Topaz
> >
> > <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tel=
> l big lies. The
> > > Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
> > > in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
> > > Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
> > > context:
> >
> > <deletions>
> >
> > =E2=82=AC One need only reflect upon the Munich Agreement, signed by Hitl=
> er on
> > September 29, 1938, and flagrantly violated less than six months later on
> > March 15, 1939, to know what a liar Hitler was.
> >
> > =E2=82=AC The Poles, invaded, occupied, and socially decapitated by Hitle=
> r's
> > armies on the basis of a fabricated =C2=A0border incident at Gleiwitz on
> > September 1, 1939, learned what a craven liar Hitler was.
> >
> > =E2=82=AC The Soviets, who signed a non-agression pact with Hitler on Aug=
> ust 23,
> > 1939, =C2=A0learned less than two years later, on June 22, 1941, how mend=
> acious
> > and deceitful Hitler was.
> >
> > =E2=82=AC The Jews of Europe, who Hitler blamed for capitalism, socialism,
> > communism, Judaism, Christianity, Germany's defeat in World War I,
> > double-entry book-keeping,
>
>
> Double-entry bookeeping was invented by an Italian, although no one
> seems to know his name.
Alessandro Monteverdi. [= Alexander Greenberg] :-)
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Joe Bruno
> In article <1179294920.827246.62...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Joe
Are you sure? I thought it was Chaim Putz.:-)
Actually, the word "Communism" is a misnomer. The economic system is
properly called "socialism". At the Bolshevik Party Congress in 1922,
the Bolsheviks wanted to distance themselves politically from the
slaughter that had taken place during the civil war that followed the
Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. So, they changed the name of the party
to "Communist."
Benjamin Cramer
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1505...@ke-hupnet130-24.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> In article <bqydnRCYWYoCEdTb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>
>
> <deletions>
>
>> >
>> > He was a lying, yellow, chickenshit cocksucker and so are you.
>>
>> PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, you fucktard.
>
> 1. That Hitler was a master of lying as a political strategy is known to
> everyone even superficially familiar with his career and philosophy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. More of your stupid opinion, dopey.
Benjamin Cramer
> On May 15, 3:34 am, "Benjamin Cramer" <yidz...@home.net> wrote:
>> "Joe Bruno" <b...@indystart.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1179197640....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On May 14, 2:56 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Leon Degrelle
>> >> "We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
>> >> Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
>>
>> > <deleted stupid Nazi horsedung posted by the Vangelbot>
>>
>> > Who the fuck cares what that degenerate said?
>>
>> > He was a lying, yellow, chickenshit cocksucker and so are you.
>>
>> PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, you fucktard.
>>
>>
>>
> What I said was my opinion, dumbass.
Your opinion, b'luto, isn't worth a hill of beans. You put it as "fact"
when, in fact, it is nothing short of a lie from one of the most mentally
dysfunctional 'tards posting on Usenet.
Go polish your armour, you fucking retard.
Benjamin Cramer
The fucking yids, you fool.
Benjamin Cramer
> In article <g8gk435p99olstjgj...@4ax.com>, Topaz
> <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
>> Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
>> in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
>> Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
>> context:
>
> <deletions>
>
> September 29, 1938, and flagrantly violated less than six months later on
> March 15, 1939, to know what a liar Hitler was.
Yet you completely ignore the dishonesty of the yids. Why?
Benjamin Cramer
He was a yid, you dopey cunt. Not a dago.
Eugene Holman
Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1605...@ke-hupnet138-25.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
> > In article <g8gk435p99olstjgj...@4ax.com>, Topaz
> Yet you completely ignore the dishonesty of the yids. Why?
Jews as a group cannot be dishonest. There are honest Jews and dishonest
Jews, just as there are honest and dishonest people in every other ethnic,
national, religious, class, caste, and racial grouping, but one cannot
project honesty or dishonesty collectively onto Jews as a group.
Much of the material that you seem to consider as examples of Jewish
dishonesty is regarded as sincere, if not always completely reliable, by
others in a better position to know than you. Accounts given many years
afterwards by people in fear of their lives of what they saw, or thought
they saw, at concentration camps and killing sites have to be regarded
critically. Lapses in factuality, mistakes, and distortions in testimony
given by people who were eyewitnesses to traumatic events when they were
under unprecedented stress, but were not in possession of sufficient
information to understand pecisely what they were observing, cannot be
simply dismissed as "lies".
Hitler, on the other hand, was a single individual whose career of
propaganda, lies, and deceptions is known to anyone with even a
superficial knowledge of the history of the Third Reich. The cynical
violations of the Munich Agreement, the Gleiwitz fabrication, the
backstabbing of the USSR, Germany's erstwhile partner in perfidy, on June
22, 1941, the scapegoating of European Jews for each and every problem and
setback that Germany had experienced, as well as the image that the failed
artist, bungling micromanager, and self-indulgent sensualist attempted to
project of a hard-working, ascetic statesman, patriot, and military
strategist suffice to show that this was no ordinary liar, but rather one
with an unparalleled mastery of the art. Hitler, der professionelle
Großlügner, occupies a central place in the Pantheon of Perfidy. The fact
that he even employed a Minister of Propaganda shows that he was fully
aware of the potential inherent in manufacturing "truth". His forcing his
mistress, Eva Braun, to appear in public with him only dressed as, and in
the function of, one of his house servants, is beyond all comment or
understanding.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Joe Bruno
> In article <D4WdndGwpuyNKNfbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdn...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
>
> Cramer" <yidz...@home.net> wrote:
> > "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> >news:holman-1605...@ke-hupnet138-25.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
The most famous con man in America, PT Barnum, certainly was not a
Jew.
You want more dishonest Gentiles? Enjoy:
Al Capone
Lucky Luciano
Vito Genovese
Joe Gallo
Joe Profaci
Salvatore Maranzano
Bugs Moran
Jake Guzik
John Gotti
Albert Anastasia
Schemer Drucci
John Dillinger
Ma Barker
Clyde Barrow
Bonnie Parker
Baby Face Nelson
Joe Masseria
Pretty Boy Floyd
Sam Bass
Jesse James
Frank James
Richard Nixon
Boss Tweed
Benjamin Cramer
> In article <D4WdndGwpuyNKNfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-1605...@ke-hupnet138-25.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
>> > In article <g8gk435p99olstjgj...@4ax.com>, Topaz
>
>> Yet you completely ignore the dishonesty of the yids. Why?
>
> Jews as a group cannot be dishonest.
History proves you to be wrong, dopey.
>There are honest Jews and dishonest
> Jews, just as there are honest and dishonest people in every other ethnic,
> national, religious, class, caste, and racial grouping, but one cannot
> project honesty or dishonesty collectively onto Jews as a group.
Yids lie. It's genetic.
>
> Much of the material that you seem to consider as examples of Jewish
> dishonesty is regarded as sincere, if not always completely reliable, by
> others in a better position to know than you.
Like whom? You? Your credibility is shot, laddie.
Eugene Holman
Bruno <br...@indystart.com> wrote:
Add:
Willy "That's where the money is" Sutton
Vice-president Spiro Agnew
The following members of the 1919 White Sox team:
Eddie Cicotte
Oscar "Happy" Felsch
Arnold "Chick" Gandil
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson
Fred McMullin
Charles "Swede" Risberg
George "Buck" Weaver
Claude "Lefty" Williams
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> > In article <D4WdndGwpuyNKNfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> > Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
<deletions>
> >There are honest Jews and dishonest
> > Jews, just as there are honest and dishonest people in every other ethnic,
> > national, religious, class, caste, and racial grouping, but one cannot
> > project honesty or dishonesty collectively onto Jews as a group.
>
> Yids lie. It's genetic.
Since language is not genetic, except in the sense of requiring that
certain physical and neural structures be able to work in close
coordination, the ability to use language in a specific way, which is what
lying is, cannot be genetic either. QED.
> > Much of the material that you seem to consider as examples of Jewish
> > dishonesty is regarded as sincere, if not always completely reliable, by
> > others in a better position to know than you.
>
> Like whom? You? Your credibility is shot, laddie.
No, the "little men" whose job it is to pass verdicts in court cases, you
know, judges. Whatever you personally may think of their decisions, they
have legal force and are not just "opinions" or the result of
"browbeating".
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Benjamin Cramer
You want more dishonest Yids? Enjoy:
Al Glass
Max "The Jerk" Golob
"Abbadabba" Berman
Bo Weinberg
Emanuel "Mendy" Weiss
Sholem Bernstein
Jacob "Hooky" Rothman
Charlie Worknan
Mert Wertheimer
Frankie Teitelbaum
Pretty" Amberg
"Dopey Benny" Fein
"Lulu" Rosenkranz
Charlie Solomon
Lou Cohen
Abe Slabow
Yasha Katzenberg
Max Rubin
Charlie Yanowski
Moses "Moey Dimples" Wolinsiky
Carl Shapiro
Irving "Chippy" Weiner
"Waxey" Wechsler
"Tootsie" Feinstein
Hyman Kasner
Mickey Cohen
"Pittsburg Phil" Strauss
"Jack" Goldstein
"Abe" Wagner
"Bugsy" Gldstein
Benny "The Boss" Tannenbaum
Meyer Lansky
"Gangy" Cohen
"Puggy" Fenstein
"Dandy Phil" Kastel
"Longy" Zwillman
Isidore "Curley" Holz
Paul Bergen
"Wolfie" Coldis
"Nig" Rosen
"Fat Sidney" Blatz
Allie "Tick Tock" Tannenbaum
Max Shaman
"Happy" Meltzer
Al Sliverman
Harry "Big Greenie" Greenbaum
Jacob Shapiro
Sam Gasberg
Arnold Rothstein
Joey Silvers
"Fatty" Koperman
Izzy Farbstein
Lou Glasser
Willie Shapiro
Max Blecker
Harry Milman
"Muddy" Kasoff
Hyman Yuran.
Shirley Porter?
Ernest Schleyer?
Fat Bob Maxwell?
"Lord" and "Lady" Black"?
Roger Levitt?
Mandelson?
Henry Sweetbaum
Gerald Ronson
Ivan Boesky
Robert Freeman
Dennis Levine
MichaelMilken
Patsy Ostrander
Martin Siegel
Murder, Incorporated was run by two of the toughest individuals to
come out New York City. Ever. Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, the nations
leading labor racketeer and Albert Anastasia, a member of the National
Crime Syndicate ran a group of mainly Jewish killers out of the back
room of the Brownsville candy store, Midnight Rose's.
Murder, Inc. was the enforcement arm of the Syndicate. They only
killed when "contracted" to do so. Contracts had to be approved
unanimously by the Commission, along with some members who claimed to
have no vote (Meyer Lansky wanted no connection to the actual voting,
but no one ever made a move without his approval). The set up:
contracts were issued from various cities throughout the nation. If a
contract needed to be completed in Baltimore, they'd hire someone from
Cleveland or Los Angeles, bring them in for a week to study the
"bum's" routine, and then off them in various ways - car accidents,
strangulation, or as simple as gunning them down on a quiet street.
One thing was certain, if a contract was issued, it was definitely
carried out.
No one outside the organization was ever rubbed out, their motto being
"we only kill our own," which was generally true. Most of the
contracts were carried out with such detail that there was no way to
trace a hit. People ended up dead or missing, some of which have
remain unsolved to this day. No one knows who actually killed Bugsy
Siegel, but some how everyone, including the general public, knows who
ordered it done and why. As for taking care of their own, the
Syndicate's most famous killing was of Dutch Schultz when they were
taking care of Thomas E. Dewey, the DA that was bringing down all the
crime lords in New York. Dewey was going after Schultz with reckless
abandon for tax evasion and anything else he could get on the wildly
tempered Dutchman. Schultz in turn, presented a contract for Dewey to
the Syndicate. The contract was denied based on the fact that if they
should rub Dewey out, when there was already too much press on what
was going on in the underworld, they would be making a martyr out of
Dewey rather than just a DA. Kill Dewey and there would be no hiding
from the justice system and every judge and politician in the state
would run. Schultz would not hear their arguments, he stormed out and
swore he'd ake Dewey out himself.
Instead, he doomed himself. Murder, Inc. was called in. Mendy Weiss
and Charlie "The Bug" Workman, two of Murder, Inc.'s most notorious
killers, were given the job. On October 23, 1935, the two walked into
the Palace Chop House and Tavern in Newark, NJ and shot three of the
Dutchman's men and shot him in the stomach while he was in the
bathroom. Abbadabba Berman, Lulu Rosenkrantz and Abe Landau died on
the spot while Dutch Schultz lingered for 24 hours in the hospital
blubbering nonsensically. He died without ever revealing his killers.
His death wouldn't go unsolved though. Bug Workman would eventually be
tried during the "Kid Twist" Reles trial and was sent to jail by
A.D.A. Burton Turkis. The Bug did 23 years for the murder.
For about ten years, Murder, Inc. was reportedly responsible for
anywhere between 500 to 700 murders nationwide, from Connecticut to
California. Below, you will find a number of Jewish and Italian
members of Murder, Inc. Some were convicted, some were executed
themselves, but they were probably the toughest guys to walk around
the streets of New York City, and didn't need a license to kill, just
a contract.
Albert Anastasia
Abe "Kid Twist" Reles
Harry Strauss (A.K.A. Pittsburgh Phil, Pep)
Louis Capone (no relation to Al)
Charlie "The Bug" Workman
Mendy Weiss
Buggsy Goldstein
Happy Maione
Dasher Abbandando
Allie Tannenbaum
Jacob "Gurrah" Shapiro
Benjamin Cramer
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> In article <COydnWYwfK7Aftfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>> > In article <D4WdndGwpuyNKNfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
>> > Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
>> >There are honest Jews and dishonest
>> > Jews, just as there are honest and dishonest people in every other
>> > ethnic,
>> > national, religious, class, caste, and racial grouping, but one cannot
>> > project honesty or dishonesty collectively onto Jews as a group.
>>
>> Yids lie. It's genetic.
>
> Since language is not genetic,
It's not about language, dopey. It's about mindset and Id.
Eugene Holman
Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> > In article <COydnWYwfK7Aftfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> > Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> >> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> >> > In article <D4WdndGwpuyNKNfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> >> > Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
> >
> > <deletions>
> >> >There are honest Jews and dishonest
> >> > Jews, just as there are honest and dishonest people in every other
> >> > ethnic,
> >> > national, religious, class, caste, and racial grouping, but one cannot
> >> > project honesty or dishonesty collectively onto Jews as a group.
> >>
> >> Yids lie. It's genetic.
> >
> > Since language is not genetic,
>
> It's not about language, dopey. It's about mindset and Id.
Lying is a specific form of language misuse. If I know that Hitler was
born in 1889 and state that Hitler was born in 1898, I have constructed a
sentence the content of which does correspond to my knowledge of the
proposition in question. Linguists who specialize in semantics and
pragmatics regard lying as a pathological form of language use.
Watch out who you call dopey, dopey.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Topaz
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and
reasonably well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in
bringing on the Second World War…
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain -- a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany…
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'…
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe…
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world…
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt…
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so…
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw…
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the
White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]…
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House…
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities…
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]…
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]…
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good -- that he broke the law for lofty
principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was
noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to
name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard.
And the argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It
implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best
interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a
kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
* * * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
Topaz
Adolf Hitler
Part of his Speech of May 4, 1941
Even my warnings against night bombings of the civilian
population, as advocated by Mr. Churchill, were interpreted as a sign
of German impotence. He, the most bloodthirsty or amateurish
strategist that history has ever known, actually saw fit to believe
that the reserve displayed for months by the German Air Force could be
looked upon only as proof of their incapacity to fly by night.
So this man for months ordered his paid scribblers to deceive the
British people into believing that the Royal Air Force alone - and no
others - was in a position to wage war in this way, and that thus ways
and means had been found to force the Reich to its knees by the
ruthless onslaught of the British Air Force on the German civilian
population in conjunction with the starvation blockade.
Again and again I uttered these warnings against this specific
type of aerial warfare, and I did so for over three and a half months.
That these warnings failed to impress Mr. Churchill does not surprise
me in the least. For what does this man care for the lives of others?
What does he care for culture or for architecture? When war broke out
he stated clearly that he wanted to have his war, even though the
cities of England might be reduced to ruins. So now he has got his
war.
My assurances that from a given moment every one of his bombs
would be returned if necessary a hundredfold failed to induce this man
to consider even for an instant the criminal nature of his action. He
professes not to be in the least depressed and he even assures us that
the British people, too, after such bombing raids, greeted him with a
joyous serenity, causing him to return to London refreshed by his
visits to the stricken areas.
It is possible that this sight strengthened Mr. Churchill in his
firm determination to continue the war in this way, and we are no less
determined to continue to retaliate, if necessary, a hundred bombs for
every one of his and to go on doing so until the British nation at
last gets rid of this criminal and his methods...
GOD KNOWS THAT I WANTED PEACE. But I can do nothing but protect
the interests of the Reich with those means which, thank God, are at
our disposal...
Topaz
Soviet Russia When He Did
Review by Daniel Michaels
For decades the prevailing and more or less official view in the
United States and Europe has been that a race-crazed Adolf Hitler,
without warning or provocation, betrayed a trusting Josef Stalin by
launching a treacherous surprise attack against the totally unprepared
Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Von Thadden's book-which is based in
large part on recently uncovered evidence from Russian archives,
Stalin's own statements, and new revelations of Russian military
specialists-persuasively debunks this view.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels. html
Topaz
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
Topaz
"The people who own and manage national impact media are Jewish and,
with other influential Jews, helped create a disastrous U.S. Mideast
policy. All you have to do is check the real policy makers and owners
and you find a much higher concentration of Jewish people than you're
going to find in the population. By national impact media I am
referring to the major news wire services, pollsters, Time and
Newsweek Magazines, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the
International Herald Tribune. For example, CBS' Mr. (William) Paley's
Jewish. Mr. Julian Goodman, who runs NBC, and there's a Leonard
Goldenson at ABC. Mrs. Katherine Graham owns the Washington Post and
Mr. Sulzberger the New York Times. They are all Jews!
You go down the line in that fashion...not just with ownership but go
down to the managing posts and discretionary posts... and you'll find
that through their aggressiveness and their inventiveness, they now
dominate the news media. Not only in the media, but in academic
communities, the financial communities, in the foundations, in all
sorts of highly visible and influential services that involve the
public, they now have a tremendous voice.
Our policy in the Middle East in my judgment is disastrous, because
it's not even handed. I see no reason why nearly half the foreign aid
this nation has to give goes to Israel, except for the influence of
this Zionist lobby. I think the power of the news media is in the
hands of a few people...it's not subject to control of the voters,
it's subject only to the whim of the board of directors." (Former Vice
President Spiro Agnew)
Charles A. Lindberg, Wartime Journals, May 1, 1941
1st Statement:
"We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence on our
press, radio, and motion pictures. It may become very serious.
(Fulton) Lewis told us of one instance where the Jewish advertising
firms threatened to remove all their advertising from the Mutual
System if a certain feature was permitted to go on the air. The threat
was powerful enough to have the feature removed." (Charles A.
Lindberg, Wartime Journals, May 1, 1941).
Charles A. Lindberg, Wartime Journals, May 1, 1941
2nd Statement:
Thursday, May 1, 1941: "The pressure for war is high and mounting. The
people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have 'the
bit in its teeth' and is hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the
Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a
huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures.
There are the 'intellectuals' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British
agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial
interests, and many others." (The Wartime Journals)
The Jews Own The Press-The Siege
"The Jews...are at the root of regicide, they own the periodical
press, they have in their hands the financial markets, the people as a
whole fall into financial slavery to them..." (The Siege, p. 38)
Nat Rosenberg, International Jewish News
"Federation played a major part in Jewish life throughout the world.
There is a federation in every community of the world where there is a
substantial number of Jews. Today there is a central movement that is
capable of mustering all of its planning, financial and political
resources within twenty-four hours, geared to handling any particular
issue. Proportionately, we have more power than any other comparable
group, far beyond our numbers. The reason is that we are probably the
most well organized minority in the world." (Nat Rosenberg, Denver
Allied Jewish Federation, International Jewish News, January 30, 1976)
Martin Peretz, New Republic Editor-in-Chief
"Much of what you have read about the war in Lebanon-and even more of
what you have seen and heard on television - is simply not true." (New
Republic Editor-in-chief Martin Peretz)
Pastoral letter issued in 1936
"A Jewish question exists, and there will be one as long as the Jews
remain Jews. It is an actual fact that the Jews fight against the
Catholic Church. They are free thinkers, and constitute a vanguard of
Atheism, Bolshevism and Revolution...One should protect one's self
against the evil influence of Jewish morals, and particularly boycott
the Jewish Press and their demoralizing publications." (Pastoral
letter issued in 1936. "An Answer to Father Caughlin's Critics," page
98) top of page
Cecile De Tormay, Le livre proscrit, p. 135
Among modern nations with their short memories, the Jewish
people...Whether despised or feared it remains an eternal stranger. it
comes without invitation and remains even when driven out. It is
scattered and yet coherent. It takes up its abode in the very body of
the nations. It creates laws beyond and above the laws. It denies the
idea of a homeland but it possesses its own homeland which it carries
along with it and establishes wherever it goes. It denies the god of
other peoples and everywhere rebuilds the temple. It complains of its
isolation, and by mysterious channels it links together the parts of
the infinite New Jerusalem which covers the whole universe. It has
connections and ties everywhere, which explains how capital and the
Press, concentrated in its hands, conserve the same designs in every
country of the world, and the interests of the race which are
identical in Ruthenian villages and in the City of New York; if it
extols someone he is glorified all over the world, and if it wishes to
ruin someone the work of destruction is carried out as if directed by
a single hand.
The orders come from the depths of Mysterious Darkness. That which the
Jew jeers at and destroys among other peoples, it fanatically
preserves in the bosom of Judaism. If it teaches revolt and anarchy to
others, it in itself shows admirable obedience to its invisible
guides.
In the time of the Turkish revolution, a Jew said proudly to my
father: 'It is we who are making it, we, the Young Turks, the Jews.'
During the Portuguese revolution, I heard the Marquis de Vasconcellos,
Portuguese ambassador at Rome, say 'The Jews and the Free Masons are
directing the revolution in Lisbon.' Today when the greater part of
Europe is given up to the revolution, they are everywhere leading the
movement, according to a single plan. How did they succeed in
concealing this plan which embraced the whole world and which was not
the work of a few months or even years? They used as a screen men of
each country, blind, frivolous, venal, forward, or stupid, and who
knew nothing. And thus they worked in security, these redoubtable
organizers, these sons of an ancient race which knows how to keep a
secret. And that is why none of them has betrayed the others." (Cecile
De Tormay, Le livre proscrit, p. 135; The Secret Powers Behind
Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 141-143)
J. Eberle, Grossmacht Press, Vienna, 1920
"An intelligent man, thoroughly familiar with the newspapers, can,
after half an hour conversation, tell anyone what newspaper he
reads...even high prelates of Rome, even Cardinals Amette and Mercier
show themselves more influenced by the Press of their country than
they themselves probably realize...often I have noticed that it is
according to his newspaper that one judges the Papal Bull or the
speech of the Prime Minister." (J. Eberle, Grossmacht Press, Vienna,
1920; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins,
p. 171)
J. Eberle, Grossmacht Press, Vienna, p. 204
"The great telegraphic agencies of the world which are everywhere the
principal source of news for the Press (just as wholesale businesses
supply the retailers), which spreads far and wide that which the world
should know or should not know, and in the form which they wish, these
agencies are either Jewish property or obey Jewish direction. The
situation is the same for the smaller agencies which supply news to
the newspapers of less importance, the great publicity agencies which
receive commercial advertisements and which then insert them in the
newspapers at the price of a large commission for themselves, are
principally in the hands of the Jews; so are many provincial
newspapers. Even when the Jewish voice is not heard directly in the
Press, there comes into play the great indirect influences, Free
Masonry, Finance, etc.
In many places Jews content themselves with this hidden influence,
just as in economic life they consider Joint-Stock companies as the
most profitable. The editors may quite well be Aryans, it is
sufficient that in all important questions they should stand for
Jewish interests, or at least that they should not oppose them. This
is achieved nearly always by the pressure of advertisement agencies."
J. Eberle, Grossmacht Press, Vienna, p. 204; The Secret Powers Behind
Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 174)
F. Trocase, L'Autriche juive, 1898, A. Pierret, ed., Paris
"The Jewish Press of Vienna sold everything, put everything at a
price, artistic fame as well as success in business. No intellectual
production, no work of art has been able to see the light of day and
reach public notice, without passing by the crucible of the Jewish
Press, without having to submit to its criticism or to pay for its
approval. If an artist should wish to obtain the approbation of the
public, he must of necessity bow before the all powerful Jewish
journals. If a young actress, a musician, a singer of talent should
wish to make her first appearance and to venture before a more of less
numerous audience, she has in most cases not dared to do so, unless
after paying tribute to the desires of the Jews. Otherwise she would
experience certain failure. It was despotic tyranny re-established,
this time for the profit of the Jews and brutally exercised by them in
all its plentitude.
Such as it is revealed by its results, the Viennese Press dominated by
Judaism, has been absolutely disastrous. It is a work of death which
it has accomplished. Around it and outside it all is void. In all the
classes of the population are the germs of hatred, the seeds, of
discord and of jealously, dissolution and decomposition." (F. Trocase,
L'Autriche juive, 1898, A. Pierret, ed., Paris; The Secret Powers
Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 175-176)
N.H. Webster, London, 1924
"When I first began to write on Revolution a well known London
Publisher said to me; 'Remember that if you take an anti-revolutionary
line you will have the whole literary world against you.' This
appeared to me extraordinary. Why should the literary world sympathize
with a movement which, from the French revolution onwards, has always
been directed against literature, art, and science, and has openly
proclaimed its aim to exalt the manual workers over the
intelligentsia? 'Writers must be proscribed as the most dangerous
enemies of the people' said Robespierre; his colleague Dumas said all
clever men should be guillotined. The system of persecutions against
men of talents was organized...they cried out in the Sections (of
Paris) 'Beware of that man for he has written a book.' Precisely the
same policy has been followed in Russia under moderate socialism in
Germany the professors, not the 'people,' are starving in garrets. Yet
the whole Press of our country is permeated with subversive
influences. Not merely in partisan works, but in manuals of history or
literature for use in schools, Burke is reproached for warning us
against the French Revolution and Carlyle's panegyric is applauded.
And whilst every slip on the part of an anti-revolutionary writer is
seized on by the critics and held up as an example of the whole, the
most glaring errors not only of conclusions but of facts pass
unchallenged if they happen to be committed by a partisan of the
movement. The principle laid down by Collot d'Herbois still holds
good: 'Tout est permis pour quiconque agit dans le sens de la
revolution.'
All this was unknown to me when I first embarked on my work. I knew
that French writers of the past had distorted facts to suit their own
political views, that conspiracy of history is still directed by
certain influences in the Masonic lodges and the Sorbonne [The
facilities of literature and science of the University of Paris]; I
did not know that this conspiracy was being carried on in this
country. Therefore the publisher's warning did not daunt me. If I was
wrong either in my conclusions or facts I was prepared to be
challenged. Should not years of laborious historical research meet
either with recognition or with reasoned and scholarly refutation?
But although my book received a great many generous appreciative
reviews in the Press, criticisms which were hostile took a form which
I had never anticipated. Not a single honest attempt was made to
refute either my French Revolution or World Revolution by the usual
methods of controversy; Statements founded on documentary evidence
were met with flat contradiction unsupported by a shred of counter
evidence. In general the plan adopted was not to disprove, but to
discredit by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me
views I had never expressed, or even by means of offensive
personalities. It will surely be admitted that this method of attack
is unparalleled in any other sphere of literary controversy." (N.H.
Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, London, 1924,
Preface; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De
Poncins, pp. 179-180)
International Jew, by Henry Ford, 1922
"It is rather surprising is it not? That which ever way you turn to
trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you
come upon a group of Jews. In sports corruption, a group of Jews. In
exploiting finance, a group of Jews. In theatrical degeneracy, a group
of Jews. In liquor propaganda, a group of Jews. Absolutely dominating
the wireless communications of the world, a group of Jews. The menace
of the movies, a group of Jews. In control of the press through
business and financial pressure, a group of Jews. War profiteers, 80
percent of them, Jews. The mezmia of so-called popular music, which
combines weak mindedness, with every suggestion of lewdness, Jews.
Organizations of anti-Christian laws and customs, again Jews. It is
time to show that the cry of bigot is raised mostly by bigots. There
is a religious prejudice in this country; there is, indeed, a
religious persecution, there is a forcible shoving aside of the
religious liberties of the majority of the people. And this prejudice
and persecution and use of force, is Jewish and nothing but Jewish.
If it is anti-Semitism to say that Communism in the United States is
Jewish, so be it. But to the unprejudiced mind it will look very much
like Americanism. Communism all over the world and not only in Russia
is Jewish." (International Jew, by Henry Ford, 1922)
The Patriot (London) November 9, 1939
"There is, however, no real evidence that the Soviet Government has
changed its policy of communism under control of the Bolsheviks, or
has loosened its control of communism in other countries, or has
ceased to be under Jew control. Unwanted tools certainly have been
'liquidated' in Russia by Stalin in his determination to be the
supreme head, and it is not unnatural that some Jews, When all the
leading positions were held by them, have suffered in the process of
rival elimination. Outside Russia, events in Poland show how the
Comintern still works. The Polish Ukraine has been communized under
Jewish commissars, with property owners either shot or marched into
Russia as slaves, with all estates confiscated and all business and
property taken over by the State. It has been said in the American
Jewish Press that the Bolshevik advance into the Ukraine was to save
the Jews there from meeting the fate of their co-religionists in
Germany, but this same Press is silent as to the fate meted out to the
Christian Poles.
In less than a month, in any case, the lie has been given to Molotov's
non-interference statement. Should international communism ever
complete its plan of bringing civilization to naught, it is
conceivable that some form of World Government in the hands of a few
men could emerge, which would not be communism. It would be the
domination of barbarous tyrants over the world of slaves, and
communism would have been used as the means to an end." (The Patriot
(London) November 9, 1939; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp.
23-24)
G.K.'s Weekly, February 4, 1937, Hilaire Belloc
"As for anyone who does not know that the present revolutionary
Bolshevist movement is Jewish in Russia, I can only say that he must
be a man who is taken in by the suppressions of our deplorable Press."
(G.K.'s Weekly, February 4, 1937, Hilaire Belloc)
Charles Sarolea, Belgian Consul
"I am quite ready to admit that the Jewish leaders are only a
proportionately infinitesimal fraction, even as the British rulers of
India are an infinitesimal fraction. But it is none the less true that
those few Jewish leaders are the masters of Russia, even as the
fifteen hundred Anglo-Indian Civil Servants are the masters of India.
For any traveler in Russia to deny such a truth would be to deny the
evidence of our own senses. When you find that out of a large number
of important Foreign Office officials whom you have met, all but two
are Jews, you are entitled to say that the Jews are running the
Russian Foreign Office." (The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern
World, a passage quoted from Impressions of Soviet Russia, by Charles
Sarolea, Belgian Consul in Edinburgh and Professor of French
Literature in the University of Edinburgh, pp. 93-94; The Rulers of
Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 31-32)
All These Things, A.N. Field
"The reader may wonder why newspapers never mention that Bolshevism is
simply a Jewish conquest of Russia. The explanation is that the
international news agencies on which papers rely for foreign news are
controlled by Jews. The Jew, Jagoda, is head of the G.P.U. (the former
Cheka), now called 'The People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs.'
The life, death or imprisonment of Russian citizens is in the hands of
this Jew, and his spies are everywhere. According to the
anti-Comintern bulletin (15/4/35) Jagoda's organization between 1929
and 1934 drove between five and six million Russian peasants from
their homes. (The Government of France now (July, 1936) has as Prime
Minister, the Jewish Socialist, Leon Blum. According to the French
journal Candide, M. Blum has substantial interests in Weiler's Jupiter
aero-engine works in France, and his son, Robert Blum, is manager of a
branch Weiler works in Russia, making Jupiter aero-engines for the
Russian Government)." (All These Things, A.N. Field; The Rulers of
Russia, Denis Fahey, p. 37)
The Cause of World Unrest (1920), Gerard Shelley
"Marxism, on which Bolshevism is founded, really did not express the
political side of the Russian character and the Bolsheviks were not
sincere Socialists or Communists, but Jews, working for the ulterior
motives of Judaism. Lev Cherny divided these Jews into three main
classes, firstly, financial Jews, who dabbled in muddy international
waters; secondly, Zionists, whose aims are, of course, well known;
and, thirdly, the Bolsheviks, including the Jewish Bund. The creed of
these Bolsheviks, according to the lecturer, is, briefly, that the
proletariat of all countries are nothing but gelatinous masses, which,
if the Intelligentsia were destroyed in each country, would leave
these masses at the mercy of the Jews." (The Cause of World Unrest
(1920), Gerard Shelley, pp. 136-137; The Rulers of Russia, Denis
Fahey, p. 37-38).
N.H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, p. 342
"We have only to look around us in the world today, to see everywhere
the same disintegrating power at work, in art, literature, the drama,
the daily Press, in every sphere that can influence the mind of the
public...our modern cinemas perpetually endeavor to stir up class
hatred by scenes and phrases showing 'the injustice of Kings,' 'the
sufferings of the people,' 'the Selfishness of Aristocrats,'
regardless of whether these enter into the theme of the narrative or
not. And in the realms of literature, not merely in works of fiction
but in manuals for schools, in histories and books professing to be of
serious educative value and receiving a skillfully organized boom
throughout the press, everything is done to weaken patriotism, to
shake belief in all existing institutions by the systematic perversion
of both contemporary and historical facts. I do not believe that all
this is accidental; I do not believe that the public asks for the
anti-patriotic to demoralizing books and plays placed before it; on
the contrary it invariably responds to an appeal to patriotism and
simple healthy emotions. The heart of the people is still sound, but
ceaseless efforts are made to corrupt it." (N.H. Webster, Secret
Societies and Subversive Movements, p. 342; The Secret Powers Behind
Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 180-181)
Marcus Eli Ravage in Century Magazine, 1928
"You {non-Jews} resent us {Jews}, but you cannot clearly say why...Not
so many years ago I used to hear that we were money-grubbers and
commercial materialists; now the complaint is being whispered around
that no art and no profession is safe from Jewish invasion...
We shirk our patriotic duty in war time because we are pacifists by
nature and tradition, and we are the Arch-Plotters of Universal Wars
and the Chief Beneficiaries of those wars. We are at once the founders
and leading adherents of capitalism and the chief perpetrators of the
rebellion against capitalism. Surely, history has nothing like us for
versatility!...
You accuse us of stirring up revolution in Moscow. Suppose we admit
the charge. What of it?...You make much noise and fury about undue
Jewish influence in your theaters and movie palaces. Very good;
granted your complaint is well founded. But what is that compared to
our staggering influence in your churches, schools, your laws and your
government, and the very thoughts you think every day?...'The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion' which shows that we plotted to bring
on the late World War. You believe that book. All right...we will
underwrite every word of it. It is genuine and authentic. But what is
that besides the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have
carried out, which we never have denied because you never had the
courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant
for anybody to read?
If you really are serious when you talk of Jewish plots, may I not
direct your attention to one worth talking about? What use is it
wasting words on the alleged control of your public opinion by Jewish
financiers, newspaper owners, and movie magnates, when you might as
well also justly accuse us of the proved control of your whole
civilization...
You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are
intruders. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your
ideals, your destiny, and have played havoc with them. We {Jews} have
been at the bottom of not merely of the latest war {WWI} but of nearly
all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major
revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and
frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it.
No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it...Who knows what
great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you
alone.
But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down
the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the
whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours
ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it solely by the
irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda...
Take the three principal revolutions in modern times, the French, the
American and Russian. What are they but the triumph of the Jewish idea
of social, political and economic justice? And the end is still a long
way off. We still dominate you...
Is it any wonder you resent us? We have put a clog upon your progress.
We have imposed upon you an alien book {Scofield Bible} and alien
faith {Judeo-Christianity, a false Christianity} which is at
cross-purposes with your native spirit, which keeps you everlastingly
ill-at-ease, and which you lack the spirit either to reject or to
accept in full...We have merely divided your soul, confused your
impulses, paralyzed your desires...
So why should you not resent us? If we were in your place we should
probably dislike you more cordially than you do us. But we should make
no bones about telling you why...You Christians worry and complain
about the Jew's influence in your civilization. We are, you say, an
international people, a compact minority in your midst, with
traditions, interests, aspirations and objectives distinct from your
own. And you declare that this state of affairs is a measure of your
orderly development; it muddles your destiny. I do not altogether see
the danger. Your world has always been ruled by minorities; and it
seems to me a matter of indifference what remote origin and professed
creed of the governing clique is. The influence, on the other hand, is
certainly there, and it is vastly greater and more insidious than you
appear to realize...
That is what puzzles and amuses and sometimes exasperates us about
your game of Jew-baiting. It sounds so portentous. You go about
whispering terrifyingly of the hand of the Jew in this and that and
the other thing. It makes us quake. We are conscious of the injury we
did when we imposed upon you our alien faith and traditions. And then
you specify and talk vaguely of Jewish financiers and Jewish motion
picture promoters, and our terror dissolves in laughter. The Gentiles,
we see with relief, will never know the real blackness of our
crimes...
You call us subversive, agitators, revolution mongers. It is the
truth, and I cower at your discovery...We undoubtedly had a sizable
finger in the Lutheran Rebellion, and it is simply a fact that we were
the prime movers in the Bourgeois Democratic Revolutions of the
century before last, both in France and America. If we were not, we
did not know our own interests. The Republican revolutions of the 18th
Century freed us of our age-long political and social disabilities.
They benefited us...You go on rattling of Jewish conspiracies and cite
as instances the Great War and the Russian Revolution! Can you wonder
that we Jews have always taken your anti-Semites rather lightly, as
long as they did not resort to violence?" (Marcus Eli Ravage (Big
Destruction Hammer of God), member of the staff of the New York
Tribune, "A Real Case Against the Jews," in Century Magazine,
January-February, 1928).
John Swinton, Former Chief of The New York Times
"We know the powers that are defying the people...Our Government is in
the hands of pirates. All the power of politics, and of Congress, and
of the administration is under the control of the moneyed
interests...The adversary has the force of capital, thousands of
millions of which are in his hand...He will grasp the knife of law,
which he has so often wielded in his interest. He will lay hold of his
forces in the legislature. He will make use of his forces in the
press, which are always waiting for the wink, which is as good as a
nod to a blind horse... Political rings are managed by skillful and
unscrupulous political gamblers, who possess the 'machine' by which
the populace are at once controlled and crushed." (John Swinton,
Former Chief of The New York Times, in his book, A Momentous Question:
The Respective Attitudes of Labor and Capital)
CHRISTEA, PATRIARCH. 20th century Romanian prelate.
"The Jews have caused an epidemic of corruption and social unrest.
They monopolize the press, which, with foreign help, flays all the
spiritual treasures of the Romanians. To defend ourselves is a
national and patriotic duty - not anti-Semitism. Lack of measures to
get rid of the plague would indicate that we are lazy cowards who let
ourselves be carried alive to our graves. Why should we not get rid of
these parasites who suck Romanian and Christian blood? It is logical
and holy to react against them." (New York Herald Tribune, August 17,
1937)
Joe Bruno
> In article <1179307652.415999.270...@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Joe
>
> Bruno <b...@indystart.com> wrote:
>
> Add:
> Willy "That's where the money is" Sutton
> Vice-president Spiro Agnew
>
> The following members of the 1919 White Sox team:
> Eddie Cicotte
> Oscar "Happy" Felsch
> Arnold "Chick" Gandil
> "Shoeless" Joe Jackson
> Fred McMullin
> Charles "Swede" Risberg
> George "Buck" Weaver
> Claude "Lefty" Williams
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
You can add an entire category, Tovarich: All the cops in Chicago
during the 1950s.
Kurt Knoll
Kurt Knoll.
Joe Bruno
> Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies.
Sure he did, but he didn't supply any proof.
The scene is a courtroom in any large city.
The district attorney's name is Adolph Hitler.
The defendant is every Jew on Planet Earth.
The charge is Perjury, lying under oath
Adolph: Well, Jews, you are under indictment for Perjury.
Judge says :Will the DA please present his case?
Hitler:HUH? What case?
Judge: Your evidence that the 15 million people under indictment lied
under oath
Hitler: I introduce into evidence Prosecution Exhibit A, a copy of
"Mein Kampf"
Judge: Let me see that
(Judge reads the highlited passages silently)
Judge: Where is your proof that the charge is true?
Hitler: Huh?
Judge: Where is your evidence?
Hitler: HUH????? I explained very carefully that the Jews tell big
lies. I said it several times.
Judge: But you offer no proof to support the charge
Hitler:Huh?
Judge: Mr Hitler, where did you go to law school?
Hitler: I didn't.
Judge:Where did you get your legal training?
Hitler: Huh?
Judge: How did you become the District Attorney?
Hitler:I told the former DA that I was gonna take over his job, and if
he didn't cooperate, I was gonna have Fatso Goering sit on him.
Judge:Does the Defense Attorney have a motion to make?
Defense Attorney: I move for a dismissal of the charges
Judge: Case dismissed
Joe Bruno
> The next thing you will tell us that Jews never lie.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
I've never met a Jew who lies half as much as you do, fool.
>
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>
> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>
>
>
> > In article <HaKdnUgq8bbDddfbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdn...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> > Cramer" <yidz...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> >>news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> >> > In article <COydnWYwfK7AftfbnZ2dnUVZ_oern...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> >> > Cramer" <yidz...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> >> >>news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> >> >> > In article <D4WdndGwpuyNKNfbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdn...@giganews.com>,
> >> >> > "Benjamin
> >> >> > Cramer" <yidz...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >> > <deletions>
> >> >> >There are honest Jews and dishonest
> >> >> > Jews, just as there are honest and dishonest people in every other
> >> >> > ethnic,
> >> >> > national, religious, class, caste, and racial grouping, but one
> >> >> > cannot
> >> >> > project honesty or dishonesty collectively onto Jews as a group.
>
> >> >> Yids lie. It's genetic.
>
> >> > Since language is not genetic,
>
> >> It's not about language, dopey. It's about mindset and Id.
>
> > Lying is a specific form of language misuse. If I know that Hitler was
> > born in 1889 and state that Hitler was born in 1898, I have constructed a
> > sentence the content of which does correspond to my knowledge of the
> > proposition in question. Linguists who specialize in semantics and
> > pragmatics regard lying as a pathological form of language use.
>
> > Watch out who you call dopey, dopey.
>
> > Regards,
> > Eugene Holman- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
RJ
(snip some drivel)
"Ben Cramer" admits that he's a troll:
"I'm not here to rebut anything or anyone, cuntface. I'm here
to antagonise and keep you occupied." -- "Ben Cramer",
Message-ID: <dv0e2v$l5a$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>.
RJ.
Benjamin Cramer
> On May 16, 7:05 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies.
>
>
> Sure he did, but he didn't supply any proof.
There is shit loads of historical proof showing evidence of the lies told by
stinky yids, b'luto. It's one of the reasons they've been expelled from
almost every European nation at some stage in their histories.
RJ
Benjamin Cramer <yid...@home.net> wrote:
(snip drivel)
At just what age did you become a nazi, "Ben"? The following
suggests it was quite early:
"When I was very much younger, a band I was in played the
Horst Wessel lied at the Concordia club in Mt. Isa" -- posted
by "Ben Cramer", Message-ID: <e8nsmm$me9$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>.
("Horst Wessel Lied" was the anthem of the Nazi Party)
RJ.
Benjamin Cramer
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> In article <HaKdnUgq8bbDddfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>> > In article <COydnWYwfK7Aftfb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
>> > Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> >> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>> >> > In article <D4WdndGwpuyNKNfb...@giganews.com>,
>> >> > "Benjamin
>> >> > Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > <deletions>
>> >> >There are honest Jews and dishonest
>> >> > Jews, just as there are honest and dishonest people in every other
>> >> > ethnic,
>> >> > national, religious, class, caste, and racial grouping, but one
>> >> > cannot
>> >> > project honesty or dishonesty collectively onto Jews as a group.
>> >>
>> >> Yids lie. It's genetic.
>> >
>> > Since language is not genetic,
>>
>> It's not about language, dopey. It's about mindset and Id.
>
> Lying is a specific form of language misuse.
Bullshit, you dopey twat. It's all to do with mindset and Id.
Benjamin Cramer
> On May 16, 7:16 am, "Kurt Knoll" <kkno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The next thing you will tell us that Jews never lie.
>>
>> Kurt Knoll.
>
> I've never met a Jew who lies half as much as you do, fool.
B'luto, you fucking retard, you label everyone with whom you disagree as
liars. You and your yid cronies have completely destroyed any negative
effect the word might once have had.
Eugene Holman
Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
<deletions>
> >
> > Lying is a specific form of language misuse.
>
> Bullshit, you dopey twat. It's all to do with mindset and Id.
No. If you subscribe to such concepts as "mindset" and "id", language
remains the means through which the results of these aspects of the mind
are made manifest and accessible to others.
No matter what theory of the mind you subscribe to, lying is a type of
misuse of language in intermediating between what the information stored
in the mind indicates to be true and the physical manifestation of a model
of this information as a sequence of linguistic signs. If the information
in my mind allows me to conclude that the proposition p = "Ben Cramer is a
liar" is valid, but I use language to model that proposition as the false
sentence -p = "Ben Cramer is not a liar", I have obviously misused
language by deliberately modeling the valid p as the invalid -p.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Benjamin Cramer
> In article <5fOdnaf3YsAps9Hb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-1605...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>
> <deletions>
>> >
>> > Lying is a specific form of language misuse.
>>
>> Bullshit, you dopey twat. It's all to do with mindset and Id.
>
> No. If you subscribe to such concepts as "mindset" and "id", language
> remains the means through which the results of these aspects of the mind
> are made manifest and accessible to others.
You stick to your very loose "linguists" connections laddie, and I'll stick
to my tried and true psychological connections, OK?
>
> No matter what theory of the mind you subscribe to, lying is a type of
> misuse of language
Clod. Lying takes place way before it's committed to language.
Eugene Holman
Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:holman-1705...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
<deletions>
> >
> > No. If you subscribe to such concepts as "mindset" and "id", language
> > remains the means through which the results of these aspects of the mind
> > are made manifest and accessible to others.
>
> You stick to your very loose "linguists" connections laddie, and I'll stick
> to my tried and true psychological connections, OK?
Fine by me. But remember, you can't have one without the other: form and
content. A lie has a form, which is manifested concretely as a linguistic
structure, as well as a content, which exists only abstractly as a
cognitive structure.
CONTENT FORM
PROPOSITION DECISION TO LIE INSTRUCTIONS TO OUPUT
GRAMMAR
Idea(p) Idea(-p) "Construct Sentence(-p)" Sentence(-p)
> > No matter what theory of the mind you subscribe to, lying is a type of
> > misuse of language
>
> Clod. Lying takes place way before it's committed to language.
Not so fast. That depends upon how you view the relationship between ideas
(or cognitive structures) and their linguistic implementation as
sentences. I view them as two sides of the same coin, you evidently don't.
I am not a "clod" for having a different theoretical viewpoinbt than you
do concerning the complex issue of the relationship between cognitive
structures and their grammatical implementation as sentences. In my
perfectly valid undertanding of the matter, lying is a deliberate and
systematic methodology of modifying a given cognitive structure p so that
it will be implemented as an otherwise equivalent sentence with the
opposite truth value -p. This if the data in my mind leads me to conclude
that "Ben Cramer is a liar.", p, but if somebody asks me how I would
characterize Ben Cramer's regard to the truth, I respond "Ben Cramer is
not a liar", -p, I have systematically and deliberately misused the
grammar of English to implement the cognitive structure p as -p.
In order to be able to lie consistently, I have to know the strategies
that the language I am using provides for rendering a cognitive structure
p as an otherwise equivalent sentence with the truth value -p. This is not
the only theory of lying, but it is a perfectly valid way of approaching
the phenomenon.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Binjamin Cram'er
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1705...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> In article <zPSdne-HlcqN2dHb...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
> Cramer" <yid...@home.net> wrote:
>
>> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:holman-1705...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>
> <deletions>
>> >
>> > No. If you subscribe to such concepts as "mindset" and "id", language
>> > remains the means through which the results of these aspects of the
>> > mind
>> > are made manifest and accessible to others.
>>
>> You stick to your very loose "linguists" connections laddie, and I'll
>> stick
>> to my tried and true psychological connections, OK?
>
> Fine by me. But remember, you can't have one without the other: form and
> content. A lie has a form, which is manifested concretely as a linguistic
> structure, as well as a content, which exists only abstractly as a
> cognitive structure.
And the cognitive structure comes prior to the linguistics.
jbr...@indystart.com
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>
> news:holman-1705...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cramer" <yidz...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> >>news:holman-1705...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
>
> > <deletions>
>
> >> > No. If you subscribe to such concepts as "mindset" and "id", language
> >> > remains the means through which the results of these aspects of the
> >> > mind
> >> > are made manifest and accessible to others.
>
> >> You stick to your very loose "linguists" connections laddie, and I'll
> >> stick
> >> to my tried and true psychological connections, OK?
>
> > Fine by me. But remember, you can't have one without the other: form and
> > content. A lie has a form, which is manifested concretely as a linguistic
> > structure, as well as a content, which exists only abstractly as a
> > cognitive structure.
>
> And the cognitive structure comes prior to the linguistics.
Your peabrain isn't capable of anything remotely representing
cognition anymore than that of a cockroach is.
jbr...@indystart.com
> In article <zPSdne-HlcqN2dHbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqn...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
>
Do you realize you're trying to teach complex linguistics to a troll
with the IQ of an asparagus? He will argue with you just to irritate
you, whether he understands the subject or not.
Topaz
liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from Mein
Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The
best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his character and
strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility which his name
arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be
reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his
newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells
the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some
greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate
falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and
duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of honor
which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is nearest
to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does
not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no
account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted,
slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this
mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all
Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on
the part of this race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of
our members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which
I had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
jbr...@indystart.com
> It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
> liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
> controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from Mein
> Kampf:
You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
We fought to destroy his fucking Third Reich and lost thousands of
American GIs in the process. Everyone knows what Mein Kamf is and who
wrote it, but
most Americans think it's complete bullshit written by a madman.
Omission is not lying. The media reports on topics Americans want to
hear and stories about a psychotic nutcase who decimated Europe 60
years ago is not on that list.
You really ain't the brightest bulb in the lamp, are ya?
If you want to know what most Americans believe, try reading the
Constitution.
Most everything in it is diametrically opposed to Hitlers crap. You
can find it in numerous places on the Internet. Your ignorance of
American reality is a constant source of amazement to me.
Topaz
>
>You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
They ought to. America is ruled by the Jews. That is their problem.
>We
Who can say "we" when referring to the USA? Definately the Jews.
Maybe women and minorities. Certainly not a White man:
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
Sara Salzman
Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2007 16:01:33 -0700, jbr...@indystart.com wrote:
>
> >
> >You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
>
> They ought to. America is ruled by the Jews.
Yet Alex Vangel cannot explain why "we" allow him to live. AND post his
drivel to alt.revisionism.
Sara
--
Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid.
- Heinrich Heine, eerily summing up the persona of "Ben Cramer"
jbr...@indystart.com
> On 17 May 2007 16:01:33 -0700, jbr...@indystart.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
>
> They ought to. America is ruled by the Jews. That is their problem.
>
<deletia>
Here's an education for you: The US Constitution:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
America is ruled by laws, not by men.
That's what the Founding Fathers wanted.
If America is ruled by the Jews:
Why is Jonathan Pollard, a Jew, in jail for spying for Israel? He was
in the Navy when he did it.If he had done his treason with an enemy
during wartime, he would have been shot for treason.
jbr...@indystart.com
Here is the applicable provision of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#904. ART. 104. AIDING
THE ENEMY
jbr...@indystart.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition,
supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives
intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any
intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or
military commission may direct.
Eugene Holman
> On 17 May 2007 16:01:33 -0700, jbr...@indystart.com wrote:
>
> >
> >You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
>
> They ought to. America is ruled by the Jews. That is their problem.
>
> >We
>
> Who can say "we" when referring to the USA? Definately the Jews.
> Maybe women and minorities. Certainly not a White man:
White men are one of several minorities in the USA. Live with it.
<deletions>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
jbr...@indystart.com
> In article <qtsp435nialeja8hg96j4kdre96so45...@4ax.com>, Topaz
Every time I see one of the racists blame Jews for Affirmative Action,
I laugh myself silly. When I applied for an auditor position with the
County of San Diego in 1989, there were Blacks and Filipinos who
applied for it also.
Because of Affirmative Action, the woman who hired me had to
go through endless paperwork and wait 3 months to bring me on board
because I was not a member of one of AA's protected minorities.
I was the only CPA in the group and she wanted me.She and I used to
joke about it after I was finally hired. I'd say:
"But I'm of Russian descent. That's a very small minority in the USA."
She'd laugh and say: "That doesn't count."
Binjamin Cram'er
<jbr...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1179442893.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 2:58 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
>> liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
>> controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from Mein
>> Kampf:
>
> You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
> We fought to destroy his fucking Third Reich and lost thousands of
> American GIs in the process. Everyone knows what Mein Kamf is and who
> wrote it, but
> most Americans think it's complete bullshit written by a madman.
>
> Omission is not lying. The media reports on topics Americans want to
> hear
No they don't, b'luto. At least they don't in the Jewnited States. The media
reports on topics they need to brainwash the public with. Mainstream media
in the Jewnited States is owned or controlled by the stinky yids, dopey.
Can you say Hasbara Project?
Binjamin Cram'er
"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-89E460...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <qtsp435nialeja8hg...@4ax.com>,
> Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2007 16:01:33 -0700, jbr...@indystart.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
>>
>> They ought to. America is ruled by the Jews.
>
>
> Yet Alex Vangel cannot explain why "we" allow him to live. AND post his
> drivel to alt.revisionism.
If you could, you lot would silence him. God knows many have tried to bluff
me into ceasing my posting. One even had the gall to ask me what "incentive"
it would take for me to cease. What a bunch of cunts.
Binjamin Cram'er
<jbr...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1179453983....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 5:33 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17 May 2007 16:01:33 -0700, jbr...@indystart.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
>>
>> They ought to. America is ruled by the Jews. That is their problem.
>>
>
>
> <deletia>
>
> Here's an education for you: The US Constitution:
What the fuck has that got to do with the topic being discussed, you fucking
loon?
Binjamin Cram'er
Yep. The most discriminated against group in the Jewnited States. And in
Australia.
Binjamin Cram'er
<jbr...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1179460843.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 8:49 pm, hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>> In article <qtsp435nialeja8hg96j4kdre96so45...@4ax.com>, Topaz
>>
>> <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 17 May 2007 16:01:33 -0700, jbr...@indystart.com wrote:
>>
>> > >You may give a shit what Hitler believed but most Americans don't.
>>
>> > They ought to. America is ruled by the Jews. That is their problem.
>>
>> > >We
>>
>> > Who can say "we" when referring to the USA? Definately the Jews.
>> > Maybe women and minorities. Certainly not a White man:
>>
>> White men are one of several minorities in the USA. Live with it.
>>
>> <deletions>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Eugene Holman
>
>
> Every time I see one of the racists blame Jews for Affirmative Action,
> I laugh myself silly.
Why, b'luto? Does the truth affect you in that way?
Binjamin Cram'er
But they did employ a member of a minority group, b'luto. You. You're
mentally dysfunctional and a stinky yid. In the trade, that's know as a
"twofor."
>
>
>
>
>
Binjamin Cram'er
<jbr...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1179434757.7...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Didn't understand what I posted, did you b'luto.
>
>
>
Binjamin Cram'er
<jbr...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1179435463.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There is no argument, you dumbkunt. Holman's got the bull by the tit. Again.
>
>
LIBERATOR
> In article <1178591405.772038.293...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> LIBERATOR <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JerbEh0CfKM
>
> > At 9:18 they start to sing.
>
> > I sure wish I knew what they were singing, it sounds very "loving".
>
> > And the speech was "Hitler means for us to be classless and non-
> > prejudicial, knowing no class distinctions", so the song likely is
> > something based on this spirit.
>
> > anyone speak German who could tell me what they're singing?
>
> <deletions>
>
> They are singing the refrain of the *Fahnenlied* ('Banner song'), the
> Hitler Youth Anthem, composed by Baldur von Schirach, a German-American(!)
> who was the leader of the Hitlerjugend. For information about von
> Schirach, seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur_von_Schirach.
>
> You can hear the first verse + refrain athttp://eri.ca/refer/vorwarts.MP3.
>
> The words of the refrain being sung in the video are:
>
> Uns're Fahne flattert uns voran.
> In die Zukunft ziehen wir Mann für Mann
> Wir marschieren für Hitler
> Durch Nacht und durch Not
> Mit der Fahne der Jugend
> Für Freiheit und Brot.
> Uns're Fahne flattert uns voran,
> Uns're Fahne ist die neue Zeit.
> Und die Fahne führt uns in die Ewigkeit!
> Ja die Fahne ist mehr als der Tod!
>
> Translation (EH):
> Our banner is fluttering before us.
> We are entering the future, man for man
> We are marching for Hitler
> Through night and through need
> With the banner of the youth
> For freedom and livelihood (lit. 'bread').
> Our banner is fluttering before us.
> Our banner represents the new era.
> And the banner is leading us into eternity!
> Yes, the banner means more to us than death!
>
> For most of the young men singing that song at this 1934 rally, the last
> two lines of the refrain were to come painfully true by May 8, 1945.
>
> Baldur Von Schirach (1907 - 1974), earlier an ardent believer in Hitler,
> began to oppose him as he gradually found out about the fate of the Jews
> whose deportation from Vienna to concentration camps in Poland was one of
> his reponsibilities. At the Nuremberg Trials von Schirach was able to
> provide convincing evidence that he had protested to Martin Bormann about
> the inhumane treatment of the Jews. He received a twenty-year sentence or
> crimes against humanity, which he served in full.
>
> I hope that helped.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
There's nothing true in what he said, the whole motive of him bad
mouthing Hitler was Jewish money being paid to him to do it, and
Hitler was long gone and he had no reason to remain loyal to Hitler,
or what Hitler created because it was all gone by Communist Allies
defeating him in war, by outnumbering him 10 to 1. The fact that
Communists were controlling Roosevelt through Henry Morgenthau, who
was funding the USSR and the Jews that controlled Stalin, and were
public officials known as "Commisars". So clearly the USA was a
Communist Sympatheizer, a Communist by mimicry of Democracy, and Ayn
Rand is the biggest one to validate this, by her work "We The Living"
in 1934 - she said the entirety of New York was bought & sold to the
soviets. Is it any wonder that New York at that time, as well as Henry
Morgenthau the treasurer of the USA, was Jewish. Clearly, the Jews
used the USA to fight Hitler because the Jews want worldwide
Communism. Jews are Communists and perform it under the veil of
different government forms, such as parliament, or democracy. Your
data sources are false Eugene, you're using fabrications by Jewish
funded allied intelligence. Thus there's no credibility to them. The
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 proves that Jews are the criminals and
Hitler is not, because he changed from that system of finance, and
that system of finance is criminal, it is a swindle. More debt is
created than money is available to meet that debt, and Hitler stopped
this system, and that is why the Jews made up the holocaust to frame
him. Depravity is Communism, and Jews want all gentiles in depravity
so they're slaves.
LIBERATOR
> Do you think Schirach deserves a post gratuitous medal for mentioning
> the inhumane treatment of the Jews to Borman? What was the exact
> nature of that; I may have missed it. Maybe he should be entered into
> the hall of righteous gentiles. Despite Schirach's complaint he
> continued to help mold a youth who worshipped Hitler. Furthermore, his
> antisemitism was early on. My position is youth should take
> responsibility; like the White Rose did. From what I read of the
> transcript of Schirach you provided he claimed to take full
> responsibility but German youth, although impressionable and guided by
> elders, also bears a responsibility. There are just some crimes I
> believe can never be atoned through the legal judicial systems.
> Genocide is one of them. And it doesn't manner if it is a willing
> executioner or a paper pushing bureacrat.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Ragland- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're full of Jewish fabricated crap worse than Eugene. Perhaps we
need to pull David Coles video of him at Auschwitz into this, yes,
David Cole the Jew who says the holocaust did not happen.
LIBERATOR
> In article <1178924030.564254.115...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RAGLANDMYC...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> <deleions>
>
>
>
> > Holman:
> > Do you think Schirach deserves a post gratuitous medal for mentioning
> > the inhumane treatment of the Jews to Borman?
>
> conclude that the cause that he had devoted most of his life to promoting
> was morally corrupt, and than act upon this decision, a desision that
> could have meant sumamry executiobn or being sent to die in a punishment
> batallion on the eastern front. This was also recognized by the IMT, which
> gave him a far lighter sentence than that given to fellow Nazi
> propagandist and brain-washer Julius Streicher.
>
> > What was the exact
> > nature of that; I may have missed it. Maybe he should be entered into
> > the hall of righteous gentiles. Despite Schirach's complaint he
> > continued to help mold a youth who worshipped Hitler. Furthermore, his
> > antisemitism was early on. My position is youth should take
> > responsibility; like the White Rose did.
>
> monopoly on information. The members of the White Rose eventually tried to
> take responsibility, but they, literally, lost their heads for doing so.
>
> > From what I read of the
> > transcript of Schirach you provided he claimed to take full
> > responsibility but German youth, although impressionable and guided by
> > elders, also bears a responsibility.
>
> as wrong and immoral. But the degree to which a totally brainwashed German
> youth can be held responsible for its actions can be debated. Even the
> song they are signing that began this thread contains the message that the
> Nazi flag, and by implication all that it symbolizes, is more important
> than their lives:
>
> <deletions>
>
> > Und die Fahne führt uns in die Ewigkeit!
> > Ja die Fahne ist mehr als der Tod!
>
> > Translation (EH):
>
>
> > And the banner is leading us into eternity!
> > Yes, the banner means more to us than death!
>
> you have to expect that it will have consequences.
>
> > There are just some crimes I
> > believe can never be atoned through the legal judicial systems.
> > Genocide is one of them. And it doesn't manner if it is a willing
> > executioner or a paper pushing bureacrat.
>
> such as the unrepentant Julius Streicher, who incited Germans to genocide
> as his profession, and a person such as Baldur von Schirach, whose
> professional duties included preparing young Germans to accept Streicher's
> propaganda unquestioningly *until* he had a moment of realization that
> what he was doing was wrong and took a considerable risk by making his
> realization known to people in a position to do something about it.
>
> Baldur von Schirach was no "righteous gentile", but he was the one-eyed
> king in the land of the blind. And before we dismiss the Nazis as a band
> of uniquely perverse genocidal brain-washers, let us not forget the
> contribution that the Christian church has made to brainwashing people to
> commit genocide. North America was ethnically cleansed of most of its
> indigenous population by Bible-thumping Christians who thought that thry
> had a divine right to steal land, kill people, and plow under the cultures
> of the godless heathen. The Holocaust of some 10,000,000 Congolese by the
> Belgians between about 1895 and 1912 was carried out by devout Roman
> Cartholics [http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocong.htm].
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Perhaps we need to validate that Oskar Schindler is also a
fabrication, the man did not exist. He's a stratagem created by Jews,
to further the belief of the holocaust by a sub-drama of which a
character was needed, so they made up Oskar Schindler. You know, kinda
like the Jews under Steven Spielbergs command staged the terrorism on
9-11. Or are you going to say that the terrorism was not staged?
LIBERATOR
> On May 14, 2:56 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Leon Degrelle
> > "We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
> > Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
>
> <deleted stupid Nazi horsedung posted by the Vangelbot>
>
> Who the fuck cares what that degenerate said?
>
> He was a lying, yellow, chickenshit cocksucker and so are you.
LOL, explain your judgements, what data do you have to call him those
names?
LIBERATOR
> In article <bqydnRCYWYoCEdTbnZ2dnUVZ_vmqn...@giganews.com>, "Benjamin
>
> Cramer" <yidz...@home.net> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
>
>
>
> > > He was a lying, yellow, chickenshit cocksucker and so are you.
>
>
> 1. That Hitler was a master of lying as a political strategy is known to
> everyone even superficially familiar with his career and philosophy.
>
> Hitler himself claimed that telling whoppers was a good strategy for
> manipulating a population. He even had a theory about it:
>
> Source:http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/387/12507_BushSatan.html
>
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> As Hitler pointed out, ordinary people will recognize when politicians
> tell ³little² lies, because they often hear or tell such lies themselves.
> But there is an innate, perhaps naive, belief that politicians will not
> lie about events of great magnitude. So while skepticism greets a
> President denying an extramarital affair, it does not greet a
> corruptly-appointed dictator who lies about WMDs, or who even jokes about
> these lies.
> <deletions>
> </quote>
>
> 2. That Hitler was a coward, who would rather kill his newly wed wife, his
> dog, and himself, rather than take responsibility for his destruction of
> Germany is known to everyone even superficially familiar with the last ten
> days of his life.
>
> Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler
>
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> Standard account of Hitler's death
>
> Adolf Hitler fled to the Führerbunker on January 16, 1945, where he
> presided over a rapidly disintegrating Third Reich as the Allies advanced
> from both east and west. By late April, Soviet forces had entered Berlin
> and were battling their way to the centre of the city where the
> Chancellery was located.
> On April 22, 1945, Hitler had an apparent nervous breakdown during one of
> his military situation conferences, and admitted defeat was imminent and
> Germany would lose the war. He expressed his intent to commit suicide, but
> Joseph Goebbels convinced him to wait. Hitler asked physician Werner Haase
> to recommend a method of suicide that would ensure his death. Haase
> suggested combining a dose of cyanide with a gunshot to the head.
>
> Hitler had a supply of cyanide capsules which he obtained through the SS.
> Meanwhile on April 28 Hitler learned of Heinrich Himmler's attempt to
> independently negotiate a peace treaty. Hitler considered this treason and
> began to show signs of paranoia, expressing worries the cyanide capsules
> he had received through Himmler's SS were fake. To verify the capsules'
> potency he ordered Dr. Haase to test them on his dog Blondi and the test
> was successful.
> Hitler, having dictated his last will and testament to secretary Traudl
> Junge, signed them at 04:00 on April 29. Shortly after midnight on April
> 29, 1945, Hitler married Eva Braun in a small civil ceremony in a map room
> within the bunker complex, before finally retiring to bed at around 04:00.
> Shortly after noon on April 30 Hitler had a short meeting with Bormann
> before eating a small lunch consisting of spaghetti with a light sauce.
> Hitler and Eva Braun then said their personal farewells to members of the
> Führerbunker staff and fellow occupants, including the Goebbels family,
> Bormann, the secretaries, and several military officers. At around 14:30,
> as Soviet forces raised their banner over the neighbouring Reichstag,
> Adolf and Eva Hitler went into Hitler's personal study.
>
> Some witnesses later reported hearing a loud gunshot at around 15:30 (the
> Goebbels' young son is said to have declared, "A direct hit!" thinking it
> was a bomb overhead). After waiting a few minutes, Hitler's valet, Heinz
> Linge, with Bormann at his side, opened the door to the study. Linge later
> stated he immediately noted a scent of burned almonds in the small study,
> a common observation made in the presence of prussic acid, a form of
> cyanide. The Hitlers were both sitting on a small sofa, Eva on the left,
> Adolf to the right. Eva's body slumped away from Adolf's. Hitler appeared
> to have shot himself at right temple, with an exit wound towards the top,
> left side of his head, with a 7.65 mm pistol which lay at his feet. Blood
> was dripping from Adolf's temple/chin and had made a large stain on the
> right arm of the sofa and pool on the floor/carpet. Eva had no visible
> physical wounds and Linge assumed she had poisoned herself.
> <deletions>
> </quote>
>
> 3. That Hitler was a sexual deviant is known to everyone even
> superficially familiar with information available about his sexuality.
>
> Source:http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswas...
>
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> Adolf, the Boy Prostitute
>
> In Germany¹s National Vice, Samuel Igra wrote that as a young man
> Hitler ³had been a male prostitute in Vienna and Munich² (Igra:67).
> Lending credence to this is the fact that for quite a long time Hitler
> ³chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many
> homosexuals² (Langer:192). That ³flophouse² was the Meldemannstrasse
> Hostel. Hitler¹s long-time ³gay² friend Ernst Hanfstaengl identified this
> residence as ³a place where elderly men went in search of young men for
> homosexual pleasures² (Machtan:56). ³It was an open secret at the
> beginning of the 20th century,² adds Machtan, ³that municipal hostels for
> homeless males were hubs of homosexual activity...[where many young men]
> kept themselves afloat by engaging in prostitution. Hitler spent over
> three years in this environment² (Machtan:51).
> This would help to explain Hitler¹s close relationships to his
> purportedly homosexual patrons Dietrich Eckart and Karl Haushofer. Rector
> writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called ³Der Schoen Adolf²
> (³the handsome Adolf²) and that later his looks ³were also to some extent
> helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Roehm¹s circle of wealthy
> gay friends² (Rector:52).
> But Hitler was apparently not involved with homosexuality solely to
> survive financially. Even in his pre-Nazi years, most of Hitler¹s reputed
> homosexual encounters were consensual meetings in which no money changed
> hands. Machtan suggests that each of Hitler¹s longer-term relationships in
> his youth -- with Reinhold Hanisch, August Kubizek, Rudolf Hausler and
> Ernst Hanfstaengl -- were homosexual ³love affairs.²
> There are numerous other incidents (³one night stands²) in which
> Hitler was purported to have been the solicitor and not the solicited one.
> Eugen Dollman, former member of Himmler¹s staff and one-time Hitler
> interpreter, cited testimonies from the files of the Munich vice squad in
> which a series of young men identified Hitler as the man who had ³picked
> them up² on the streets for homosexual relations (Machtan:135ff). Dollman
> himself was also homosexual (ibid.).
> Additional allegations addressed homosexual conduct by Hitler during
> the first World War. The so-called ³Mend Protocol,² a document prepared by
> German military intelligence under Admiral Canaris, contains the testimony
> of Hans Mend. Considered highly credible, Mend had this to say about
> Hitler:
> Meanwhile, we had gotten to know Hitler better. We noticed that he never
> looked at a woman. We suspected him of homosexuality right away, because
> he was known to be abnormal in any case. He was extremely eccentric and
> displayed womanish characteristics which tended in that direction....In
> 1915 we were billeted in the Le Febre brewery at Fournes. We slept in the
> hay. Hitler was bedded down at night with ³Schmidl,² his male whore. We
> heard a rustling in the hay. Then someone switched on his electric
> flashlight and growled, ³Take a look at those two nancy boys.² I myself
> took no further interest in the matter (Ibid:68)
> <deletions>
> </quote>
>
> Source:http://www.kimel.net/hitjew.html
>
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> Hitler's abnormal sexual development is an important factor in his
> behavior. "It is well known that Hitler's sex life was bizarre. As a young
> man, he repressed direct sexuality and projected his erotic energy in
> grandiose fantasies. In his thirties, he was consistently attracted to
> young childlike women who clearly resembled his mother. They could,
> therefore, be more easily dominated than mature women but at the same time
> serve as a symbolically mother figure. Waite's review of the material
> concerning Hitler's relationship with women makes it quite clear that he
> had an intense, unusual effect on them, probably because of his odd sexual
> demands. ....Virtually every one of at least several young women who were
> close to Hitler attempted or succeeded in committing suicide.
> <deletions>
> </quote>
>
> He is not known to have been a cocksucker, except in the figurative sense,
> but his megafarts were legendary.
>
> Source:http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Diagnosis-Destructive-Fritz-Redlich/dp/0...
>
> <quote>
> <deletions>
> The reader does learn a great deal about the mundane details of Hitler's
> health (including his ongoing problems with flatulence, which Dr. Redlich
> does not quite connect to his vegetarian diet), about the doctors who
> treated him, and about some of the medical practices still used in the
> 1940s (including leeches).
> <deletions>
> </quote>
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
Eugene everything you cite is Jewish fabricated. Not one thing is true
or from a valid German source. Everything you're utilizing is from a
Jewish owned media source. Staged evidence, just as the holocaust was
staged. As we can call upon Jew David Cole who defends Hitler, his
video of him at the camps of Auschwitz prove just how capable of
creating believeable lies the Jews were, because he got the camp tour
guide who is a PhD to contradict himself, as well as David showed that
ventilation vents were in the ceiling of the claimed gas chambers.
Then we have the swimming pool and broadway theater that Hitler
created for his prisoners, this tactfully is not included in the tour
of the camp, because it is evidence that Hitler had concern for human
life of his enemys, and wanted them to be happy in their internment.
The evidence is sufficient in David Coles video that the holocaust did
not happen.
LIBERATOR
> On May 15, 4:24 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
> > Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
> > in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
> > Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
> > context:
>
> > "But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
> > for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
> > responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
> > shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
> > catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
> > hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
> > the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
> > away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
> > enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
> > Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
> > is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
> > force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
> > more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
> > than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
> > of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
> > the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
> > matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
> > would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
> > they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
> > truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
> > may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
> > will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
> > the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
> > has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
> > this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
> > people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
> > purposes.
> > "From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
> > any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
> > very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
> > religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
> > race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
> > branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
> > exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
> > Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
> > wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
> > to prevail."
>
> You say Hitler was very dedicated to the truth?
>
> "Hitler"????? Isn't he the guy who guarranteed the neutrality of
> Holland shortly before invading it?
>
> Isn't he the guy who signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR
> shortly before invading it?
>
> Isn't he the guy who signed a treaty with the Vatican several days
> before arresting numerous Catholic priests and charging them with all
> sorts of good shit?
>
> Isn't he the guy who collected money from German workers for
> Volkswagens to be produced, then kept the money and never delivered
> any automobiles to any of them?
>
> Are we discussing the same Hitler, O Mighty Robotic One?
> I hear a rather intense squeak coming from your direction. Did you
> forget to oil
> your joints this morning? I recommend you stop using porkfat for that
> purpose and replace it with WD-40 instead.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your using Jewish sources of data which are twisted half-truths
claimed to be full truths. Do you want me to humiliate you by
providing the full truths of these cited occurences in their timeline?
On the VolksWagen 5 marqs paid weekly, this was an option, not
mandatory, and after WW2 was over, Volkswagen delivered cars to the
living survivors of the war, and if they didn't survive, their familys
got the car. Why did you not provide this information? Are you a
filthy Jew - yes I would say so, you pathetic schemester, or wait a
minute, are you just dumb enough to believe that you have whole
truths, not half as purposely engineered less of which to frame Hitler
as an evil man? I'll say it again dumb fuck, VolksWagen delivered cars
to every family that paid for them after WW2 was over. And for your
knowledge, stupid, the SS survivors are the ones that ran VolksWagen,
after the war, so the whole of the corporation was and still is full
NAZI, and still loyal to Der Fuhrer.
But I really want you to explain to me why you did not tell us that
VolksWagen delivered cars to everyone that paid for them, 5 marqs a
week, of which you tried to say this was planned extortion and
thievery, thus your character proves itself to be dirt. I can provide
you the anti-Hitler anti-NAZI book that states that the volkswagens
were delivered to the familys that paid for them, after the war. But I
want you to work for your humiliation, by requesting the data source
from me.
jbr...@indystart.com
Those are my opinions, idiot, and I don't need to justify them to
you.
Hitler can't sue me cause he's dead.
LIBERATOR
You mean you don't know that the Jewish mode of duplicity is to keep
themselves from being detected as criminals, by staging justice over/
of one of them? Uh, is that too complex for you, to see that this was
staged of which to be a con against Goyim that Jews don't have
unrestricted control or are "above the law"? Let me simplify it for
you - Jews are above the law, and to keep that going and not be
exposed, they have to stage stratagem events, such as staging one of
them being successfully prosecuted as a criminal. None of it happened,
it's all a con.
Binjamin Cram'er
<jbr...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1179472568.5...@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 11:57 pm, LIBERATOR <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> On May 14, 8:54 pm, Joe Bruno <b...@indystart.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 14, 2:56 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Leon Degrelle
>> > > "We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
>> > > Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
>>
>> > <deleted stupid Nazi horsedung posted by the Vangelbot>
>>
>> > Who the fuck cares what that degenerate said?
>>
>> > He was a lying, yellow, chickenshit cocksucker and so are you.
>>
>> LOL, explain your judgements, what data do you have to call him those
>> names?
>
>
> Those are my opinions, idiot,
If that's the case, dickhead, you should have stated as much, instead of
claiming it as fact.
Yids don't do fact. You're fact resistant.
LIBERATOR
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jews created Affirmative action to cause problems on purpose, of which
to expand government intervention, of which to require more funding,
of which to increase the national deficit, by doing this 1,000 times
in 1,000 areas of government, it increases the national deficit of
which disparity sets in and unemployment occurs, thus the long action-
reaction chain of events results in a form of Communism, as explained
by Ayn Rand in "We The Living", and is it any wonder that you're a
Russian and supporting Jewish people, shows that you're a Communist
sympathiezer. And our hatred towards Jews is again justified by your
scheme, to say affirmative action is good, not a pretext for
corruption.
LIBERATOR
LMAO, Ben you crack me up so bad.... Glad to see you out here on a
daily basis in Cyberland....
Eugene Holman
LIBERATOR <spy.e...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> There's nothing true in what he said, the whole motive of him bad
> mouthing Hitler was Jewish money being paid to him to do it, and
> Hitler was long gone and he had no reason to remain loyal to Hitler,
> or what Hitler created because it was all gone by Communist Allies
> defeating him in war, by outnumbering him 10 to 1.
The one problem with what you clim is that Baldur von Schirach began to
criticize Nazi policies towards Jews as early as 1943, when he was in
charge of "evacuating" Jews from Vienna. At the time there was no Jewish
money or influence to speak of in Hitler's Reich. How could von Schirac
have been the recipient of Jewish money then or at Nuremberg? Why should
he, a high-ranking civil servant, need to supplement his salary with graft
paid by the Jews, even if they were in a position to provide such slush
money?
If the allies outnumbered Hitler ten to one, Hitler is the one to blame.
Only a military idiot would go to war, with few allies, limited resources
or access to them, and a considerable amount of his manpower committed to
occupying neighboring countries, against the UK and the British
Commonwealth, France, the USSR, and the USA, *all at the same time*.
> The fact that
> Communists were controlling Roosevelt through Henry Morgenthau, who
> was funding the USSR and the Jews that controlled Stalin, and were
> public officials known as "Commisars". So clearly the USA was a
> Communist Sympatheizer, a Communist by mimicry of Democracy, and Ayn
> Rand is the biggest one to validate this, by her work "We The Living"
> in 1934 - she said the entirety of New York was bought & sold to the
> soviets.
A clear literary exaggeration...
> Is it any wonder that New York at that time, as well as Henry
> Morgenthau the treasurer of the USA, was Jewish.
My parents were living in New York at the time, and they were not and are
not Jewish, neither were their relatives or most of their associates.
Actually, New ork City became much ore "Jewish" after the war, when many
Holocaust survivors and displaced persons moved to the United States
through New York City. The New York City of the 1950s and 60s tht I grew
up in was far more Jewish that the New York city of the 1930s and 40s that
my parents grew up in.
> Clearly, the Jews
> used the USA to fight Hitler because the Jews want worldwide
> Communism.
In your dreams. Ad it was Hitler who declared war on the United States,
not the other way around.
> Jews are Communists and perform it under the veil of
> different government forms, such as parliament, or democracy. Your
> data sources are false Eugene, you're using fabrications by Jewish
> funded allied intelligence. Thus there's no credibility to them.
And you can prove this?
> The
> Federal Reserve Act of 1913 proves that Jews are the criminals and
> Hitler is not, because he changed from that system of finance, and
> that system of finance is criminal, it is a swindle. More debt is
> created than money is available to meet that debt, and Hitler stopped
> this system, and that is why the Jews made up the holocaust to frame
> him. Depravity is Communism, and Jews want all gentiles in depravity
> so they're slaves.
You forgot to take your medicatio this morning.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
LIBERATOR <spy.e...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
<deletions>
-
>
> You're full of Jewish fabricated crap worse than Eugene. Perhaps we
> need to pull David Coles video of him at Auschwitz into this, yes,
> David Cole the Jew who says the holocaust did not happen.
David Cole is also the one whose arguments are based upon such weak
foundations as his misunderstanding of his Polish guide's less than fluent
English. In previous postings I have discussed the varying ways in which
the phrase "in original state", uderstood by Cole in one way ad by his
guide in another way, can be interpreted.
You cannot prove or dsprove the historicity of the Holocaust by arguing
about the alternative meanings of words. That such semantic shenanigans
are Cle stock in trade was pointed out in the now famous letter from
Frantiszek Piper:
Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/p/piper.franciszek/press/daily.texan.1093
<quote>
ogwiqcim, October21,1993
Dr Franciszek Piper
Pa'nstwowe Muzeum
32-603 Ogwiecim -Poland
Texas School Publications
University of Texas
P.O.Box D
Austin,Texas 78713-8904
U S A
Dear Sirs,
In connection with an advertisement of David Cole (An open
letter to the daily Texan, February 19, 1993) in which he offers
the videotape named "David Cole - Interviews Dr Franciszek
Piper" I would like to inform your readers:
1. the sham interview with me there is the Neonazi
style monologue of young man who never seriously approached the great
tragedy of humanity named Auschwitz and Holocaust. In his
ingenuousness he decided to halt the part of the murderers
instead of their innocent victims - different every
honest man does. My answers on a few questions of Cole ( who
deceitfully introduced himself as a man who wanted to convince his
acquaintances in America that Auschwitz was really a place of
genocide) constitute a small proportion of this video tape.
2. In his advertisement he introduces me as a "Head of
Auschwitz Archives at the Auschwitz State Museum". This is
untruth. I am not and I have been neither a head of Auschwitz Archives
nor a director of Auschwitz Musum, as Cole maintains in
other propaganda leaflets. The purpose of such manipulation
with of facts is clear - to attract potential purchasers of his
"Interview" video tape.
3. Cole maintains that I first time admitted the allegedly
unknown fact the Nazis adapted the crematorium in question in
which the gas chamber were located for air-raid shelter, the fact
allegedly unknown even for Museum guides. It is un truth. See
enclosed copies of pages from the books which constitute the
fundamental reading for Auschwitz guides. In book by T-an Sehn
"Concentrat Camp Ogwiqcim-Brzezinka (Auschwitz-Birkenau)Warsaw 1957,
You may read on the page 152-"In May 1944 the old Crematorium
I in the base camp was adapted for use as an air raid shelter
The Fact is also confirmed in the book by Jean Claude Pressac
"Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers,
published by The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989 (515
Madison Avenue). On the page 157 you may read: "With part of the
building converted to an air raid shelter, this is the state in which
the SS abandoned Krematorium I in January 1945" Repeating what
Pressac had written I told what was the nature of the
adaptation works carried out by the Nazis and what one had to do to
remove those changes in order to regain the previous appearance.
They are all "Pipers revelations. In spite of the fact that
such secondary restoration works had to be done there is an
undisputable reality that the gas chamber in question is housed in the same
building which has been existed from prewar times till now.
4. The fact that the Nazi murderers used gas chambers (in
Birkenau you can see the ruins of the other 5 gas chambers) for
mass annihilation of innocent men, women and children, mostly
Jews, has been proved by thousands of memoires and depositions of
eyewitnesses as well as by German official documents and plans.
It is obvious fact for everybody who wants to approach the
problem, to contact still living witnesses and to study historical
sources.
5. I have devoted 28 years of my life to save the memory of
the counless victims of the Nazi barbarity to warn people against
indifference to all forms of racial, religious and national
based hatered, which leads to injustice, suffering and killing
of innocent people. Because of it I take the fact my name is
used for disseminating such kind of lies and hiding of the obvious
truth as a lack of honesty and dignity.
yours,sincerely
DrFranciszek Piper
PS Send me please the copy ofyour magazine in which my letter will be
published
[transcription note: Dr. Piper's first language is Polish, not
English, and the letter reads awkwardly. knm]
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
LIBERATOR <spy.e...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
<deletions>
>
> Eugene everything you cite is Jewish fabricated.
And you can rove this?
> Not one thing is true
> or from a valid German source.
Sice you have indicated that you do not know German, I restricted myself
to English sources. There are abudant sources in German from the
German-speaking world that have precisely the same content.
For some take on Hitler's penchant for lying, for example, see Michael
Hesemann's recent book *Hitler's Lügengebäude*, ISBN-10-3899964810.
<quote>
<deletions>
Beschreibung
Nichts an Hitler war echt so der Historiker Michael Hesemann in seinem
neuen Buch “Hitlers Lügen³ , und trotzdem gelang ihm der Aufstieg vom
Namenlosen hin zum Führer eines ganzen Volkes. Aber mit welchen Mitteln
schaffte es der ehemalige Gelegenheitsmalers, sowohl die Deutschen als
auch das Ausland zu “ver³-führen?
Hitler war ein Lügner, der gleichzeitig ein großes Redetalent besaß. Wie
er sich dies zunutze machte, stellt der international verlegte
Bestsellerautor Hesemann auf anschauliche Weise dar. Primärquellen wie
Hitlers “Mein Kampf³ sowie dessen zahlreiche Reden geben erschreckende
Auskunft über eine auf Lügen aufgebaute Laufbahn, die im Völkermord und
Expansionskrieg mündete.
<deletions>
</quote>
> Everything you're utilizing is from a
> Jewish owned media source. Staged evidence, just as the holocaust was
> staged. As we can call upon Jew David Cole who defends Hitler, his
> video of him at the camps of Auschwitz prove just how capable of
> creating believeable lies the Jews were, because he got the camp tour
> guide who is a PhD to contradict himself, as well as David showed that
> ventilation vents were in the ceiling of the claimed gas chambers.
David Cole is a native speaker of English, the camp guide that
"contradicts" himself is not even a fluent speaker of English. The
"contradiction" was a verbal argument about what the adjective "original"
means: "unmodified" or "restored to the state it was in before subsequent
modification".
David Cole's video is obviously manipulative and has no evidentiary value
whatsoever.
> Then we have the swimming pool and broadway theater that Hitler
> created for his prisoners, this tactfully is not included in the tour
> of the camp, because it is evidence that Hitler had concern for human
> life of his enemys, and wanted them to be happy in their internment.
For the most part, Auschwitz was designed by Rudolf Hoess, not Hitler, and
the norms for the camp were established by the RSHA and the WVHA, the
bureacracies that built, ran, and staffed the network of concentration
camps.
Since Auschwitz typicaly had more than 150,000 people, many of which were
detained there for the "crime" of having been born a Jew or a Gypsy, it is
perfectly understandable that there would have been outlets for their
frustration and creativity, such as a theater.
> The evidence is sufficient in David Coles video that the holocaust did
> not happen.
If you consider David Cole's obviously manipulative video, which takes
place at one of the more than 10,000 camps, subcamps, ghettos,
extermination centers, and euthanasia enters operated by the Nazi regime
in more than twenty countries over a period of more than six years to
outweigh mountins of evidence to the contrary, that says a lot about your
ability to make rational judgements.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
jbr...@indystart.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Suck my dick and go fuck your Mother, you stupid Nazi pig.
I don't take orders from Nazi scum.
jbr...@indystart.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go fuck your Mother, Nazi pig.
jbr...@indystart.com
I didn't.
>
>
jbr...@indystart.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
FUCK OFF, NAZI PIG.
LIBERATOR
> In article <1179471197.823023.302...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> LIBERATOR <spy.exp...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
> -
>
>
>
> > You're full of Jewish fabricated crap worse than Eugene. Perhaps we
> > need to pull David Coles video of him at Auschwitz into this, yes,
> > David Cole the Jew who says the holocaust did not happen.
>
> David Cole is also the one whose arguments are based upon such weak
> foundations as his misunderstanding of his Polish guide's less than fluent
> English. In previous postings I have discussed the varying ways in which
> the phrase "in original state", uderstood by Cole in one way ad by his
> guide in another way, can be interpreted.
>
> You cannot prove or dsprove the historicity of the Holocaust by arguing
> about the alternative meanings of words. That such semantic shenanigans
> are Cle stock in trade was pointed out in the now famous letter from
> Frantiszek Piper:
>
LOL, Eugene, you expect us to believe that Dr. Piper was not fearing
for his job for being candid with David Cole, and you think that we're
not going to recognize that you're scheming by trying lamefully to say
that he didn't understand English, uh, you're claiming he didn't
interpret David Cole correctly, yet I saw the video, and I know he did
interpret David Cole correctly. So now there's a response by Dr. Piper
who clearly is doing it to keep his job, you expect anyone to believe
this bullshit as "valid"? And you expect people are not going to know
that the holocaust was fabricated by David Coles examination?
You clearly are a Jew, in that you believe that simple use of media to
lie will work. People are not as dumb as you Jews think. Some are, but
not all, and many because of the internet are coming around to see
that Hitler was framed. Unfortunately for you I control Steven
Spielberg and George Lucas, who control the Jews.
heh heh heh....