TRUTH
Greg
universe has no absolute truths within it. Except that which we EXPERIENCE
within ourselves. That which we see with our eyes, hear with our ears and
otherwise sense with our physical senses is illusion. It grows and dies to
become something else.
The Truth does exist. It is that which we ultimately yearn and search for.
One can only experience it within and in that experience develop faith.
However, one must have faith to experience it. Prepare yourself in this
search by use of intellect, but at some point come to the realization that
faith is beyond and greater than intellect. When the student is ready the
teacher will appear.
The only Truth is God. Unchanging, everlasting, unnamed, undescribed, all
encompassing. God is the source of all things, all universes. All was made
out of God's Love and Mercy. We live here in this physical world of duality
and illusion, only to learn our lessons and struggle back toward our source.
How can anyone know another's experience. Wisdom is born of experience, not
intellect. Use your intellect to aid in your journey, to choose what is
logical from what is not. Open to your spirituality, that which can not be
explained, but only experienced. Here is Truth.
This journey is ultimately more satisfying.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Greg <gl...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<VzcF4.1632$CA2....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
> Truth is that which is everlasting, unchanging and absolute. Our
physical
> universe has no absolute truths within it. Except that which we
EXPERIENCE
> within ourselves.
Nonsense, it is absolutely true that White are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. It is proven on all IQ tests. Here are some quotes
from Mein Kampf:
"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developements and discoveries, are the products of the creative
activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their first beginnings
must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of civilization is wholly
dependant on such peoples. Should they perish, all that makes this earth
beautiful will descend with them into the grave."
"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on the
blood."
"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science
and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully
justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior
type of humanity"
"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
native Japanese culture., although this characterizes the exterenal
features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the real
foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous scientific and
technical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, of Aryan
peoples."
"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated natioanal character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the change
which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a people is
only an effect of the change that had modified its racial substance."
"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future
for our humanity would be lost forever."
"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."
"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if the
Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should disappear,
all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual needs of the
superior nations to-day would also disappear."
"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded as
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined by
the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only by our
duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing this we have
reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer insight"
"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the
State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more
than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that
everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high
mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which
a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."
Jacob Ordeberg
Can this really be an absolute truth? In this statement you say that
black people are less intelligent (even much less intelligent) than
white people. However, there could exist a certain black man that is
more intelligent a certain white man, all according to your statement
(maybe not the wildest assumption).
Let us now think what would happen if every human being on this Earth
except for these two were killed in some kind of disaster; very
improbable, but yet possible - imagine the two on a moon base while the
Earth gets hit by an asteroid. After this, the average intelligence of
all blacks (=the surviving black man) would be higher than that of all
whites (=the surviving white man). Therefore, this truth could not be
considered absolute, since it is not eternal.
By the way, what is the meaning with all this developpement which A.
Hitler attributes to the white part of the human population? What higher
purpose does it serve?
---
'Trying to seek, not to know'
Alex Vange
--
http://stormfront.org
Jacob Ordeberg <jacob.o...@telia.com> wrote in article
<38EA6221...@telia.com>...
> > Nonsense, it is absolutely true that White are on average much more >
intelligent than Blacks. It is proven on all IQ tests.
>
> Can this really be an absolute truth? In this statement you say that
> black people are less intelligent (even much less intelligent) than
> white people. However, there could exist a certain black man that is
> more intelligent a certain white man, all according to your statement
> (maybe not the wildest assumption).
True
>
> Let us now think what would happen if every human being on this Earth
> except for these two were killed in some kind of disaster; very
> improbable, but yet possible - imagine the two on a moon base while the
> Earth gets hit by an asteroid. After this, the average intelligence of
> all blacks (=the surviving black man) would be higher than that of all
> whites (=the surviving white man). Therefore, this truth could not be
> considered absolute, since it is not eternal.
Agreed
>
> By the way, what is the meaning with all this developpement which A.
> Hitler attributes to the white part of the human population? What higher
> purpose does it serve?
>
Whites invented just about everything. The only way the earth can have
a good future is if the White race is preserved. The leftist do not want to
White race to survive. They promote intermarriage and multi-culture and
diversity in the former White nations. This is only in the former White
nations. They have no problem with China being for the Chinese, Japan being
for the Japanese, or the Jews having their own country. They are just
against White people.
Jacob Ordeberg
> have a good future is if the White race is preserved. The leftist do
> not want to White race to survive. They promote intermarriage and
> multi-culture and diversity in the former White nations. This is only
> in the former White nations. They have no problem with China being
> for the Chinese, Japan being for the Japanese, or the Jews having
> their own country. They are just against White people.
I agree that most inventions that have changed our society are the
products of white guys.
However, I'm still thoughtful about what you write about the future of
the Earth and its dependence on the fate of white people. For now, I'll
assume that everything that mr Hitler claims in Mein Kampf is true.
So why are we, the white part of mankind, then so important? Mr Hitler
writes that we are the primus motor behind all development - in other
words, without the white man, there would be no development.
Accordingly, we're the only part of mankind actively wishing development
- if others did actively wish development to occur, they would invent,
create, ie develop.
Who would then mourn this lack of development which Mr Hitler claims
would follow our extinction? We would certainly not - we would be
dead...:) Is there any higher purpose that you can see in mankind
developing, a purpose which would remain even if white man, and with him
the wish for development, would disappear?
(Please correct if I am wrong about anything regarding the opinions of
Mr Hitler - I haven't read Mein Kampf in full, just some of the first
chapters)
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Shai-Tan <fors...@home.com> wrote in article
> >
> Race is an illusion that was created in the past, and propagated in the
> present by the ignorant; There is only one human race.
No, humans can be White, Black, Asian or some combination of these.
This isn't normative
> rhetoric - it is the truth according to scientific proof. This person
going
> by the name Alex Vange has either been misled or is trying to manipulate
> others. Notice how his idealogy differs from racists in the past to
> accomodate some undeniable truths into his fantasy land; because
otherwise,
> his arguments will affect only the ultra ignorant. Notice how he accepts
the
> intelligence of those who are not "white" in north america, because he
can
> not deny it
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks.
Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had a
profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was now
mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that seemed to
always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with peeling paint
an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some old holdouts in the
neighborhood, they told me that the once rare burglary, vandalism and
assault had now become commonplace. The diehard White remnants who remained
had adapted to the changes and found a way to endure each indignity and
violation the best they could. The change had been so gradual that they
were no longer shocked by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.
"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men standing
around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously unknown White
person trespassing in their neighborhood.
"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my memories
became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the neighborhood. It
seemed as though I had only been away a few scant hours. Now those memories
crashed against the images of the present causing me to feel off balance.
It was akin to visiting a healthy friend and then after a few short weeks
to see him wasting away with cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection
was more idealized than it really was--as soon as I returned home, I
ferreted out my old photographs.
"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive than
I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often accented with
blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks edged closely, and
many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos dotted the clean streets.
Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and Becky Thatcher-like bright faces
of the children with whom I spent so many happy hours of childhood.
"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets yards
and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry teenagers, with
scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and crack in their pockets,
menacing the streets where children now fear to venture. A picture
repeated, I believe, all over the United States of America. For the current
White residents of Gentilly Woods their story is much like the story fo the
frog that is put in a pot of warm water while the temperature is slowly
increased until the poor creature is boiling and it is too late to save
itself. Is the traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water
to realize what is ahead?
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of America. The
political corruption, failing schools, drug problems, crime, the run down
housing and even the trash in the streets- all hold a preview of the coming
attractions of 21st century America. When all of America is of the same
racial proportion as that of the inner cities, there will be no White
infrastructure, and no white cornucopia of tax revenue mitigating the Third
Worldism. Criminals will no longer be held in check by White police,
prosecutors, juries and judges. The shrinking White tax base will be
inadequate to the costs of the criminal justice system and jails needed to
house lawbreakers. The housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those
who cannot provide their own--will no longer be able to live off the
support of the aging and diminishing European population."
The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org
-- but does not accept the possible intelligence of those in
> areas most often foreign to those reading and listening.
They are less intelligent in Africa because they are more pure Black. In
America they have more White blood in them but they are still on average
much less intelligent than the Whites.
It's pure
> ignorance. I'm willing to bet he's never heard of the word
socio-economic,
> let alone studied social and economic evolution through history.
>
> Your statement that "white guys" invented "most things" is propagated
> stupidity.
It is a proven fact.
I suppose Einstein was just an "exception"
We do not say that Jews are unintelligent but here are some facts on
Einstein anyway:
Albert Einstein is held up by the Jewish liars as a rare
genius who drastically changed the field of theoretical
physics. As such, he is made an idol to young people and
his very name has become synonymous with genius. The truth,
however, is very different. The reality is that Einstein
was an inept, moronic Jew who could not even tie his own
shoelaces; he contributed nothing original to the field of
quantum mechanics or any other science, but on the contrary
he stole the ideas of other men and the Jewish media made
him a hero.
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we
find that his only brilliance lies in his ability to
plagiarize and steal other people's ideas, passing them off
as his own.
Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part
of this story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of
Einstein's early education that he "showed little
scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of
15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages,
he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in
a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical
ability."
In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an
engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of
mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be
mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser
school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the
engineering school he could not get into, but after
graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at
the engineering school!
Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job
(with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern.
He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant
that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
position. Even after publishing his so-called
groundbreaking papers of 1905 and after working in the
patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a
second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at
the patent office, for which he was only rated third class,
was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was
reviewing technical documents for patents of every day
things; yet he was barely qualified. He would work at the
patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying
to get a position at a university, but without success. All
of these facts are true, but now begins the Jewish myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid
of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a
laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with
an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four
ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics
and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.
Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a
feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein
has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to
him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is
the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept
moron could have written such documents at the age of 26
without any real education. However, a simpler explanation
exists: he stole the ideas and plagiarized the papers.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover
the source of each. It should be remembered that these
ideas are presented by Einstein's worshippers as totally
new and completely different, each of which would change
the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the
following four ideas, respectively:
1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4. The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory
of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely
attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt
with what Einstein called the Special Theory of Relativity
(the General Theory would come in 1915).
This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian
mechanics and was based upon two premises: 1) in the
absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same
for all observers; and 2) since the speed of light is
independent of the motion of its source, then the time
interval between two events is longer for an observer in
whose frame of reference the events occur at different
places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the
events occur in the same place. This is basically the idea
that time passes more slowly as one's velocity approaches
the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where
time would pass faster.
This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is
the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are
far from being originally Einstein's. First of all, the
idea that the speed of light was a constant and was
independent of the motion of its source was not Einstein's
at all, but was proposed by the Scottish scientist James
Maxwell.
Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and
first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature. He
wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate,
and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing
debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz,
Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the
velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the
observer.
Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was
known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.
This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and
Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of
which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They
observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not
understand relativity. They had attempted to detect the
motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium
thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.
In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish physicist
George FitzGerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism
for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that
the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment could be
explained if,
"... the length of material bodies changes, according as
they are moving through the ether or across it, by an
amount depending on the square of the ratio of their
velocities to that of light."
This is the theory of relativity, 13 years before
Einstein's paper!
Furthermore, in 1892, Hendrik Lorentz, from The
Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to
greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890's, both
Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote
articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory
detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald
Contraction.
In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations
explaining the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction and its
relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein's paper.
By 1904, Lorentz transformations, the series of equations
explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They
describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length,
and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to
the velocity of light.
In short, by 1904, everything in Einstein's paper regarding
the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.
The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a paper
unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before
Einstein's paper that,
"... we have no direct intuition about the equality of two
time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order
of their succession, as well as the equality of two time
intervals, must be defined in such a way that the
statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible."
Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately
recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the
part of Einstein. Thus we see that the only thing original
about the paper was the term 'Special Theory of
Relativity.' Everything else was plagiarized.
Over the next few years, Poincaré became one of the most
important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but
he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned
Albert Einstein. Thus, while Poincaré was busy bringing the
rest of the academic world up to speed regarding
relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office
in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it
necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein's
work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a
fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the
subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian
motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising
from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in
which the body is immersed.
The movement had first been observed by the Scottish
botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this
phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and
it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig
Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert
Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the
motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between
these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything
in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was
contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905.
This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc².
Einstein's biographers categorize this as "his most famous
and most spectacular conclusion."
Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of
Einstein's earlier relativity paper, it was not included in
that paper but was published as an afterthought later in
the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was
not original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had
been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J.
Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In
1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a mass relationship
for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy.
Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was
Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet
unappreciated physicists of the era.
Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists
who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He
had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and
energy for many years and had published a paper on the
topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would
publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant
work in this area, Hasenörhl had received in 1904 a prize
from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and
energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known
equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists
long understood that the mathematical relationship
expressed by the equation E=mc² was the logical result of
Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it.
Thus, the experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann, and finally,
and most importantly, Hasenörhl, confirmed Maxwell's work.
It is ludicrous to believe that Einstein developed this
postulate, particularly in light of the fact that Einstein
did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the
appropriate experiments.
In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he
suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will
prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose
energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of
radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein
understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish
remark.
By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not
understand basic scientific principles and that he was
writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact,
in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such
an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible
experience."
The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was
the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein
wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric
effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or
semiconductors by the action of light. This area of
research is particularly important to the Einstein myth
because it was for this topic that he unjustly received his
1922 Nobel Prize.
But again, it is not Einstein, but Wilhelm Wien and Max
Planck who deserve the credit. The main point of Einstein's
paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that
light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called
quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric
effect.
The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich
Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
worked on understanding this phenomenon. Lenard was the
first to show that the energy of the electrons released in
the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity
of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an
important breakthrough.
Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers
of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based
upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy
was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The
only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of
1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one
particular type of energy - light energy.
But the principles and equations governing the process in
general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein
himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's
work was that light also existed in discrete packets of
energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was
original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the
scientific community took little notice and Einstein
continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it
was arranged for him to take a position at a school by
World Jewry. Still, it was not until a 1919 newspaper
headline that he gained any notoriety.
With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed
in a position where he could begin to use other people's
work as his own more openly. He engaged many of his
students to look for ways to prove the theories he had
supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and
then he could present the research as his own or at least
take partial credit.
In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his
gravitational research in terms of a new, recently
developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding
relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
Relativity, which he would publish in 1915. But the
mathematical work was not done by Einstein - he was
incapable of it.
Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel
Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles
developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop
a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all
mathematics used to describe relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of
relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational
pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle
that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object.
Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the
work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to
Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the
conclusions were incorrect.
It appears that Grossmann was not smart enough to figure it
out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere
to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his
correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said
prior to its publication that he, "...completely succeeded
in convincing Hilbert and Klein." He is referring to David
Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliant mathematician of the
20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who
had been instrumental in the development of the area of
calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General
Theory of Relativity for Einstein.
Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the
reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and
Klein's opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he
had influenced them in their thinking. However, the exact
opposite is true. Einstein stole the majority of his
General Relativity work from these two men, the rest being
taken from Grossmann.
Hilbert submitted for publication, a week before Einstein
completed his work, a paper which contained the correct
field equations of General Relativity. What this means is
that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the
same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have
had an opportunity to know of Hilbert's work all along,
because there were Jewish friends of his working for
Hilbert.
Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen
Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of
these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the
form of a lecture.
Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin
and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in
Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from
Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the
treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th.
So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least
two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two
men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send
Hilbert an advance copy of his. Therefore, this serves as
incontrovertible proof that Einstein quickly plagiarized
the work and then presented it, hoping to beat Hilbert to
the punch. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began
to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he
had praised him in an effort to get Hilbert to share his
work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein
this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first.
Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of
much higher quality than Einstein's. It is known today that
there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein's
General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much
closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of
the unified field theory of gravitation and
electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger,
whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.
That the group of men discussed so far were the actual
originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by
the scientific community all along. In 1940, a group of
German physicists meeting in Austria declared that "before
Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl,
Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory
of relativity..."
However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these
men. The Jewish media did not promote the work of David
Hilbert, but instead they promoted the work of the Jew
Albert Einstein.
As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated
by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein
second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass
by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the
Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was
observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence
supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the Jewish-
controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to
prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true
genius, David Hilbert.
On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the
headline of which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New
theory of the Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown." This
was the beginning of the force-feeding of the Einstein myth
to the masses.
In the following years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were
propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator
of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the
Jewish media, in 1922, Einstein received the Nobel Prize
for the work he had stolen in 1905 regarding the
photoelectric effect.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and
1922 was an important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As
soon as Einstein had been established as an idol to the
popular masses of England and America, his image was
promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed
to be today. As such, he immediately began his work as a
tool for World Zionism.
The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so
brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding of the
universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions
regarding political and social issues. This is exactly what
World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of
social engineering. They certainly did not want someone
like David Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After
all, this physicist had come from a strong German, Gentile
background.
In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken
regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the
Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf
Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that
was published in the German newspapers. So the Jews
certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit
he deserved.
The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he
deserved either. This German's grandfather and great-
grandfather had been important German theologians, and
during World War II Planck would stay in Germany throughout
the war, supporting his fatherland the best he could.
The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin
Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses. This
Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler
University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter
expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian's
work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern
physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein,
who apparently could not understand it.
The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as
a rare genius, even though he would go on to solidify
quantum theory and contribute to it greatly, as well as
develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to
describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding
energies that are essential to modern chemistry. No, the
Jews did not want Heisenberg promoted as a genius because
he would go on to head the German atomic bomb project and
serve prison time after the war for his involvement with
the Third Reich.
No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number
of white Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen,
Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the
body of knowledge and evidence from which Einstein
plagiarized and stole his work. Instead, they needed to
erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he
repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his
nonfactual or nearsighted comments regarding the work he
had supposedly done.
For example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a
front page article in which Einstein gave an "emphatic
denial" regarding the idea of practical applications for
the "energy of the atom." The article says,
"But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If
you believe that man will someday be able to harness this
boundless energy--to drive a great steamship across the
ocean on a pint of water, for instance-then, according to
Einstein, you are wrong..."
Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of
physics he had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the
world at the time theoretical research was underway that
would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. But after
Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real
attempts to plagiarize any other work.
Rather, he began his real purpose--evangelizing for the
cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish
other articles after this time, all of them were co-
authored by at least one other person, and in each
instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the
research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited
by the co-authors in order to lend credence to their work.
Thus freed of the pretense of academia, Einstein began his
assault for World Zionism.
In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States
on a fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem and to promote Zionism. In April of 1922,
Einstein used his status to gain membership in a Commission
of the League of Nations. In February of 1923, Einstein
visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he became
a founding member of the Association of Friends of the New
Russia. In 1926, Einstein took a break from his Communist
and Zionistic activities to again embarrass himself
scientifically by criticizing the work of Schrödinger and
Heisenberg.
Following a brief illness, he resumed his Zionistic agenda,
wanting an independent Israel and at the same time a World
Government.
In the 1930s he actively campaigned against all forms of
war, although he would reverse this position during World
War II when he advocated war against Germany and the
creation of the atomic bomb, which he supposedly thought
was impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the
request of other Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt
urging an American program to develop an atomic bomb to be
used on Germany--not Japan. Einstein would have no part in
the actual construction of the bomb, theoretical or
practical, because he lacked the skills for either.
After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the
White Race and of the Germans in particular in the
following statements. He was asked what he thought about
Germany and about re-educating the Germans after the war
and said,
"The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally
since 1870 . . . Behind the Nazi party stands the German
people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in
his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the
possibility of misunderstanding. . . . The Germans can be
killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-
educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting . . ."
In December of 1946, Einstein rekindled his efforts for a
World Government, with Israel apparently being the only
autonomous nation. This push continues through the rest of
the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein, who had been instrumental in
the creation of the State of Israel, both politically and
economically, was offered the presidency of Israel. He
declined.
In 1953, he spent his time attacking the McCarthy
Committee, and he supported communists such as J. Robert
Oppenheimer. Einstein encouraged civil disobedience in
response to the McCarthy trials. Finally, on April 18,
1955, this filthy Jewish demagogue died.
Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making
stupid statements. His death was just the beginning of his
usage and exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-
controlled media continued to promote the myth of this
Super-Jew long after his death, and as more and more of the
men who knew better died off, the Jews were more and more
able to aggrandize his myth and lie more boldly.
This brazen lying has culminated in the Jew controlled Time
magazine naming Einstein "The Person of the Century" at the
close of 1999. It may be demonstrated that the Jewish lies
have become more bold with the passage of time because
Einstein was never named "Man of the Year" while he was
alive, but now, over forty years after his death, he is
named "Person of the Century."
Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut
choice for the "Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler.
Hitler was indeed named "Man of the Year" while he was
still living by Time magazine, and according to a December
27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen
over Adolf Hitler because of the perceived "nasty public
relations fallout" that would accompany that choice; yet in
internet polling by Time, Hitler finished third and was the
top serious candidate.
Still the issue of Time magazine dedicated to Einstein,
which has articles by men with names like Isaacson, Golden,
Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt, is interesting to read.
For one, they found it necessary to include an article
rationalizing why they did not pick the obvious choice,
Adolf Hitler. But more interesting is the article by
Stephen Hawking which purports to be a history of the
theory of relativity. In it, Hawking admits many of the
things in this article, such as the fact that Hilbert
published the General Theory of Relativity before Einstein
and that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of
relativity long before Einstein.
Hawking also writes,
"Einstein . . . was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner
Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin
Schrödinger in Zurich, who developed a new picture of
reality called quantum mechanics. . . . Einstein was
horrified by this . . . Most scientists, however, accepted
the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed
excellent agreement with observations . . . They are the
basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular
biology and electronics and the foundation of the
technology that has transformed the world in the past half-
century."
This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits
Einstein with all of the modern developments that Hawking
names, even though Einstein was so stupid as to be
vehemently against the most important idea of modern
science, just as he opposed Schrödinger's work in unified
field theory which was far ahead of its time. The same
magazine admits that "success eluded" Einstein in the field
of explaining the contradictions between relativity and
quantum mechanics.
Today, these contradictions are explained by the unified
field theory, but Einstein, who proves himself to be one of
the least intelligent of 20th century scientists, refused
to believe in either quantum theory or the unified field
theory.
To name Einstein as "The Person of the Century" is one of
the most ludicrous and absurd lies of all time, yet it has
been successfully pulled off by Isaacson, Golden, Stein,
Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and the Jewish owners of Time
magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give the title to
an inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice
would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or Heisenberg. If
they wanted to give it to the scientist who most
fundamentally changed the landscape of 20th century
science, then the obvious choice would be William Shockley.
This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the transistor,
which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and
computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs
and watches, to the amazing computers which have allowed
incomprehensible advances in all fields of science. Without
the transistor, all forms of science today would be
basically in the same place that they were in the late
1940s.
However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to
William Shockley because he spent the majority of his
scientific career demonstrating the genetic and mental
inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their
sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the Jews
to financially destroy Shockley who founded the first
company in the Silicon Valley, his hometown, to develop
computer chips. The Jews hired away his entire staff and
used them to start Fairchild semiconductor, the company
that today is known as Intel.
No, the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses
of our time be recognized, not the anti-Semite Henry Ford,
not the great German scientists who helped the National
Socialists in Germany, not Charles Lindbergh, who was
sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and certainly not
William Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists and
geneticists of our time. Instead, the Jews propped up the
Zionist, Communist Albert Einstein who hated everything
white.
and nations like
> taiwan and japan who design and manufacture much of the electronics
around
> the world are just an "exception" as well.
The Japanese are the lightest of the Asian people. They are much
lighter than the people in India.
I also suppose that the large
> percentage of "minorities" responsible for the tech boom in north america
at
> this time are just an "exception".
This is a falsehood and the so-called Black inventers looked about 95%
White. Pictures of them can be seen in the latest Truth At Last:
For a newspaper that is free of Jewish propaganda write to The Truth
At Last, P. O. Box 1211, Marietta, Georgia 30061 USA $6 for a four month
trial subscription, same rates overseas. After you read the truth you will
never go back to the jewspapers.
Seriously, align your mind with proof
> from the real world. If people can spout off obvious innacuracies such as
> that -- then I could say something like "everyone in europe is inferior
> because they haven't had as many technological advancements as the united
> states in the past 200 years".
No, most of the advances were made in National Socialist Germany.
I suggest you read into economics, politics,
> world history, and current philosophy including logic, before taking such
> books as Mein Kampf into your head. That way you'll understand what
Hitler
> is trying to elucidate upon and why he is/was completely wrong and in his
> own insane fantasy land. As for absolute fact -- i suggest you go to
> deja.com and read a pretty good dialogue contrasting absolute
transendental
> truth and subjective scientific thought, titled Re: Challenge for
subjective
> Moralists (as well as a web search on elementary logic).
It sounds interesting but I don't feel like going there.
> You deserve respect by dint of the native intelligence you display, and
the
> resulting skeptcism; but you err badly in assuming that the racism he
> expounds is possibly painting a picture of obvious reality. Just look at
the
> page that he links to. It's an attempt to manipulate the ignorant and
> disenfranchised with rhetoric such as "native born white americans" (like
> they were there first),
They built America and all the civilization in it.
Here are some quotes from "The Oregon Trail" written by Francis
Parkman. It is a true story about his experiences with Indians. He
travelled to Oregon in 1846 and lived with Indians.
"For the most part, a civilized white man can discover very few points
of sympathy between his own nature and that of an Indian. With every
disposition to do justice to their good qualitites, he must be conscious
that an impassable gulf lies between him and his red brethren. Nay, so
alien to himself do they appear, that, after breathing the air of the
prairie for a few months or weeks, he begins to look upon them as a
troublesome and dangerous species of wild beasts."
"Assume , in the presence of Indians, a bold bearing, self-confident yet
vigilant, and you will find them tolerably safe neighbors. But your safety
depends on the respect and fear you are able to inspire."
"Against most of the neighboring tribes they cherish a rancorous hatred...
This fierce spirit awakens their most eager aspirations, and calls forth
their greatest energies. It is chiefly this that saves them from lethargy
and utter abasement. Without its powerful stimulous they would be like the
unwarlike tribes beyond the mountains, scattered among the caves and rocks
like beasts, and living on roots and reptiles. These later have little of
humanity except the form"
"Their religion, superstitions and prejudices were the same handed down
to them from immemorial time. They fought with the weapons that their
fathers fought with, and wore the same garments of skins. They were living
representatives of the "stone age"; for though their lances and arrows were
tipped with iron procured from the traders, they still used the rude stone
mallet of the primeval world."
"The surrounding group of savages offered no very attractive
spectacle to a civilized eye. Some were cracking the huge thigh-bones and
devouring the marrow within; others were cutting away pieces of liver, and
other approved morsels, and swallowing them on the spot with the appetite
of wolves. The faces of most of them, besmeared with blood from ear to ear,
looked grim and horrible enough."
"few beings have more curiosity than Indians in regard to subjects within
the ordinary range of thought. As to other matters, indeed, they seem
utterly indifferent. They will not trouble to inquire into what they cannot
comprehend, but are quite contented to place their hands over their mouths
in token of wonder, and exclaim that it is "great medicine". With this
comprehensive solution, an Indian never is at a loss. He never launches
into speculation and conjecture; his reason moves in its beaten track. His
soul is dormant"
and allusions to a great crisis (you don't think the
> world is going to end tommorow like they paint it, do you?). These men
are
> power hungry controlling inadequite morons.
>
> You've already shown a hunger for knowledge. Don't ever stop that quest
in
> understand the world.
>
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
honour which can be worn by our comrades. He whom the 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 attitide 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."
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Shai-Tan <fors...@home.com> wrote in article
<QZmH4.27518$m5.4...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>...
>
> "Jacob Ordeberg" <jacob.o...@telia.com> wrote in message
> news:38ECEEAA...@telia.com...
I didn't see this post from Jacob Ordeberg on my server but noticed it
quoted in a post after it. I am in alt.philosophy.debate
> > > Whites invented just about everything. The only way the earth can
> > > have a good future is if the White race is preserved. The leftist do
> > > not want to White race to survive. They promote intermarriage and
> > > multi-culture and diversity in the former White nations. This is only
> > > in the former White nations. They have no problem with China being
> > > for the Chinese, Japan being for the Japanese, or the Jews having
> > > their own country. They are just against White people.
> >
> > I agree that most inventions that have changed our society are the
> > products of white guys.
> >
>
> > However, I'm still thoughtful about what you write about the future of
> > the Earth and its dependence on the fate of white people. For now, I'll
> > assume that everything that mr Hitler claims in Mein Kampf is true.
> >
> > So why are we, the white part of mankind, then so important?
For future inventions and advancements. We are upholding civilization on
the earth.
Mr Hitler
> > writes that we are the primus motor behind all development - in other
> > words, without the white man, there would be no development.
> > Accordingly, we're the only part of mankind actively wishing
development
> > - if others did actively wish development to occur, they would invent,
> > create, ie develop.
No, they wish to develope but have far less geniuses than the White
race.
> >
> > Who would then mourn this lack of development which Mr Hitler claims
> > would follow our extinction? We would certainly not - we would be
> > dead...:)
Maybe no one would mourn but they would not know how good it could of
been. They would not realize what they were missing.
Is there any higher purpose that you can see in mankind
> > developing, a purpose which would remain even if white man, and with
him
> > the wish for development, would disappear?
The purpose is to advance the human race. Someday we will reach for the
stars.
The earth would be in a bad way without us.
> >
> > (Please correct if I am wrong about anything regarding the opinions of
> > Mr Hitler - I haven't read Mein Kampf in full, just some of the first
> > chapters)
You didn't mention the Jews but the reason Hitler was against them was
mainly because the Jews controlled the media and because the Jews were
behind Communism. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment
I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
needed
only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly
lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being
infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far
that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
filth
directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought
to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existance ten
thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in
poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.
"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people?
"I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The result
of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I had
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic
tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
people
who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not be
gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. 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 attitide 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."
"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."
Mark Little
> .....
> No one is out to get white people.
An unrealistic statement. Of course some people are "out to get white
people". This is like saying that no one is out to get black, asian,
red, yellow or whatever people. There are individuals and groups that
_are_ out to get "some one" and at some times it is white people. What
_isn't_ true is that everyone is out to get "white people" or indeed
anyone else.
> I would know. I've travelled half the world
> in my life. The only people who are opposed to me are people such as you.
> Perhaps you should start questioning the information that you are recieving
> from this David Duke person. You should be skeptically questioning all the
> information you take in.
I quite agree. The guy's perspective seems unbalanced. He appears to see
one or two situations and extrapolate it to encompass every other
situation. The problem is that he is the sort of person whose prejudices
result in self fulfilling prophesies. After all, there is a natural
tendency for us to dislike those who exhibit a dislike of ourselves.
> I'm not jewish. So I guess I'm just a "white" liar. Alex Vange, no one is
> out to get you. I just find your thoughts disturbing. Those that hate are
> only the misled and ignorant. But fear not; You can seek out information and
> overcome that ignorance.
There are bad things in the world, and it is prudent to be aware of what
is going on around yourself. This means that you should not fool
yourself that (1) everyone is evil, or that (2) everyone has the same
tolerance level as yourself. Option 1 is self fulfilling and option 2
can get yourself in trouble as well if you don't read the situation.
Balance in all things is the best way.
Mark.
Jacob Ordeberg
Alex Vange wrote:
> "Jacob Ordeberg" <jacob.o...@telia.com> wrote in message
> news:38ECEEAA...@telia.com...
>> So why are we, the white part of mankind, then so important?
>
> For future inventions and advancements. We are upholding civilization on
> the earth.
>
>> Mr Hitler
>> writes that we are the primus motor behind all development - in other
>> words, without the white man, there would be no development.
>> Accordingly, we're the only part of mankind actively wishing
>> development
>> - if others did actively wish development to occur, they would invent,
>> create, ie develop.
>
> No, they wish to develope but have far less geniuses than the White
> race.
>
Ok - in other words, all of mankind do develop, but white people do it
faster, as I understand you. Hope I got it right this time :).
>> Who would then mourn this lack of development which Mr Hitler claims
>> would follow our extinction? We would certainly not - we would be
>> dead...:)
>
> Maybe no one would mourn but they would not know how good it could of
> been. They would not realize what they were missing.
>
>> Is there any higher purpose that you can see in mankind
>> developing, a purpose which would remain even if white man, and with him
>> the wish for development, would disappear?
>
> The purpose is to advance the human race. Someday we will reach for the
> stars.
>
> The earth would be in a bad way without us.
>
I understand from this that there is no goal more important than
the advancement of the human race, and that any other goal is
subordinate to this ultimate goal. Please correct me if I have
misinterpreted your post.
If this is correct, then one can think of several situations where
there would be a conflict between the freedom of the individual and
this goal. For example, we could picture (white) descendants of
white colonists in an African country, wishing to live on and have
children in this country.
Following the laws of racial division, they would have to move to
Europe or North America. However, as similar displacements in
Zimbabwe have recently shown, these guys are often very reluctant to
move. Where would you draw the line? Would they be forced to move,
as in Zimbabwe?
How much should the state limit the freedom of the individual?
Limitations of individual freedom is a part of all societies; ours limit
the freedom to kill, the freedom to acquire property by use of
violence or threats of violence etc etc. However, it seems that
your society would limit the freedom of the individual to a higher
degree than that of today - the freedom of movement and the freedom
of love would both be restricted. What freedoms could the state demand
of its citizens to give up for the higher good, in your eyes?
>> (Please correct if I am wrong about anything regarding the opinions of
>> Mr Hitler - I haven't read Mein Kampf in full, just some of the first
>> chapters)
>
> You didn't mention the Jews but the reason Hitler was against them was
> mainly because the Jews controlled the media and because the Jews were
> behind Communism.
Thank you. You've never written anything specifically about Jews in your
posts, so neither did I :).
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Shai-Tan <fors...@home.com> wrote in article
<I5II4.34525$m5.6...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com>...
>
> "Mark Little" <ma...@brigadoon.apana.org.au> wrote in message
> news:38F050FE...@brigadoon.apana.org.au...
> Yes, I was aware of all these things. I suppose I am at fault for using
> strong tones to try and get him to see his fault in the paranoia that he
> expresses. The inherent problem that I find with extreme racists and cult
> members is that they need strong sentiment to essentially wake up from
the
> dream they are in. This is because part of the indoctrination they have
been
> subjected to makes them reject most, if not all outside information
because
> they are taught to be insular through the notion that the outside world
is a
> scary evil place out to get them.
>
Here is proof that the media is biased against White people:
A month ago I told you about the murder of two White girls, Tracy
Lambert and Susan Moore, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, as part of
the initiation of new members into the Black and Hispanic Crips gang.
I'm still receiving comments about that program. Apparently many
listeners -- especially those with Internet access -- checked out the
facts as reported in the Fayetteville newspaper, and they were shocked
that, just as I said, there was no media coverage of these terrible
murders outside the Fayetteville area. They were shocked that
virtually all of the mainstream media around the country would
deliberately hide the news of these racially motivated murders from
the White public -- and these were the same media which had made such
a sensation about the killing of a convicted Black drug dealer and his
girlfriend in Fayetteville by a White soldier, James Burmeister, in
December 1995.
But really, no one who has been listening to my broadcasts should have
been shocked. I have commented over and over again about the virtual
control of all of America's mass media by the Jews, and I have pointed
out many times that the Jews' policy is to disarm the White population
morally as well as physically by deliberately creating the false
impression that Whites are oppressors and victimizers, and non-Whites
are our innocent victims. They want us to feel guilty. They want us to
feel that it would be immoral for us to resist any of their schemes
for more non-White immigration, for more so-called "diversity" and
That is what the Jewish media bosses are deliberately pushing: the
destruction of our people through racial mixing, and they don't want
us to put up any resistance. And I am sorry to say, their program is
succeeding. When they send their step'n'fetchit Bill Clinton around
the country making speeches about how much he is looking forward to an
America with a non-White majority, about how any resistance to the
government's programs for the darkening of America would be
un-American, he is applauded by brainwashed young Whites who have been
deceived by this deliberately falsified media impression of Whites as
oppressors.
Now you know, I am making a pretty serious accusation. I am accusing
the Jewish population as a whole -- and the Jewish media bosses in
particular -- of planning our annihilation as a race, of planning to
commit genocide against us. And I don't want anyone to think that I am
basing my accusation on only the few instances of racially motivated
killings I already have cited: their suppression of the news of the
Fayetteville murders of two White girls by the Crips and their
sensationalizing of the news of the Fayetteville shooting of a Black
drug dealer and his girlfriend by a White soldier and of the dragging
death of another convicted Black criminal in Teaxas by three Whites.
Jewish media have deliberately covered up. The details aren't pleasant
-- in fact, they are shocking -- but I believe that many listeners
need to be shocked.
Let's begin with another crime which occurred in Fayetteville. This is
timely because the trial of the criminals began just last week. Here's
what happened: Donald Lange, a 25-year-old White soldier at Fort Bragg
accidentally bumped into a group of seven Black soldiers who were
going in. The Blacks began punching Lange while shouting racial
insults at him. They dragged him into the adjacent parking lot and
stomped and kicked him while continuing to shout racial epithets.
A witness in the trial of the Blacks, Tracye Cochran, was in the
parking lot where the assault took place. She told the court last
week, -- quote -- "The Black person who threw the first punch was the
one who knocked him down. . . . It dropped him down to his knees. He
got back up and got hit again. . . . I was walking toward the fight
screaming and hollering for them to leave him alone. . . . By then he
was just getting hit by people left and right." Another witness, Gina
Perez, testified that she saw eight or ten Blacks kicking and stomping
Lange as he lay on the pavement. She told of seeing one Black kicking
Lange in the face, causing his head to slam into the pavement and
bounce back. The Black would then kick him again, over and over. Perez
said, "They just kicked him to death. I remember him being on his
side, being kicked over and over again."
an example of why we must do something about "race hate." But
Mr. Clinton has responded to the stomping of Donald Lange with
silence.
If Donald Lange had been Black and his attackers White, the media
bosses would have had Janet Reno on television announcing that she was
sending in the FBI. The media would have been interviewing every
professional hate merchant: the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Morris Dees and his Southern
Poverty Law Center, and all the rest. The media would have made a real
circus of it, and the whole world would have had it drummed into their
consciousness: another hate crime against a poor, innocent Black by
White racists in Fayetteville.
In order to convince the media bosses that he was doing something to
"end hate" after the Burmeister shooting of the Black drug dealer, the
commanding general of Fort Bragg ordered a witch hunt among the White
soldiers on the base. Every White soldier was checked for tattoos that
might suggest a skinhead affiliation. As the media frenzy continued,
the witch hunt for White racists in the Army eventually spread to
other bases. Now, don't hold your breath waiting for the general at
beliefs and their gang affiliations because of what Blacks from the
there, and the general has better things to do with his time.
Last month a Black mob in Alton, Illinois, which is a suburb of St.
into their neighborhood looking for his stolen television set. As they
were beating and kicking 48-year-old Richard Skelton to death on
August 10, the Blacks hooted, laughed, and shouted racial insults,
according to a number of eye-witnesses.
Now, it's possible that you may have read a few words about this
racially motivated murder -- if you're a careful reader of the small
news items in the back pages of your newspaper. But you certainly
didn't see anything about it on television or read any detailed news
accounts, unless you live in the immediate vicinity of Alton. Even the
news accounts in Alton tried to excuse the Black murderers by
suggesting that Skelton may have precipitated the attack on himself by
using racially insensitive language in asking about his stolen
beating the unarmed White man. Black bystanders watched and shouted
encouragement to the attackers. Others joined in the attack, and soon
as many as 25 Blacks were beating and kicking Skelton. They continued
kicking him until he was dead.
Again, imagine the response of the controlled mass media if the races
of the victim and the killers had been reversed: a Black wanders into
a White neighborhood and is beaten to death by a mob of 25 Whites who
laugh and shout racial insults as the Black dies. My god, the media
would be apoplectic! They would be calling for martial law and a
roundup of all heterosexual White males who weren't registered
over and over and over again, along with sermons against White racism.
But as it is, most of my listeners are now hearing about last month's
racially motivated mob murder of Richard Skelton for the first time.
Here's another one that you may have read a few words about if you're
a news hound or if you live in eastern New York state. Earlier this
month in Poughkeepsie, New York, a town on the Hudson River about 70
miles north of New York City, police discovered the decomposing
corpses of seven White women and one Black woman in the house of
Kendall Francois. The women had been murdered over a two-year period,
with the latest being killed just a month ago. Francois is a
27-year-old Black man who works as a hall monitor in a nearby high
school. Affirmative action got him the school job even though he had a
previous arrest record. Francois was living with his mother and father
and younger sister -- and eight decaying corpses. Police found the
dead women lying on beds and in the midst of piles of rotting garbage
in various rooms of his house. Francois's parents and his sister, who
is employed as a nurse at a nearby hospital, said that they hadn't
was the odor of the garbage which had been allowed to accumulate in
the house. Francois had picked up the women, one at a time, taken them
to his house, had sex with them, and then strangled them.
Now, in a sense the murders of these women may not have been race
crimes. The women were all prostitutes, and aside from the fact that
Francois had a preference for killing White prostitutes, we don't
really know what his motive was for killing them...
The real racial angle to these killings is the media response -- or
lack thereof. Do you remember John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer? I'm
sure you do, even though Gacy was arrested 20 years ago and Dahmer
more than seven years ago. Both of them also were serial killers who
stashed the bodies of their victims in or under their houses. Both
received enormous publicity when police caught them -- so much that we
still remember them many years later. But they were both White...
Earlier this month a court in Colorado convicted Francisco Martinez of
participating in the abduction, gang rape, torture, and murder of a
14-year-old White girl, Brandy Duvall. Martinez and six other members
of the Black and Hispanic Bloods gang grabbed Brandy from a bus stop
girl to the house of one of the gang members and spent several hours
raping her and then sexually torturing her with a knife and a
broomstick. During the trial one of the gang members told the court
how Martinez laughed as he repeatedly rammed a broomstick into the
body of the bleeding girl while she screamed and pleaded for her life.
Later they stabbed the 14-year-old girl 28 times and dumped her body
in a ditch. Then they went home and disposed of the bloody mattress on
which she had been raped and tortured.
Four of the Bloods gang members have pleaded guilty, one other besides
Martinez has been tried and convicted, and one is still awaiting
trial. This case is reminiscent of the Fayetteville murders last month
of two White girls by members of the Crips. The Crips and the Bloods
are the two largest non-White gangs in the United States. Like the
Fayetteville murders, Brandy Duvall's murder and the subsequent trials
have received virtually no national news coverage, although
Denver-area newspapers did report them.
Once again, imagine the reaction of the television networks and all of
the other national media if instead of the Bloods raping, sexually
torturing, and murdering a 14-year-old White girl, seven Ku Klux Klan
members had done that to a Black girl or a Mexican girl. The gruesome
details would be on every television screen in America night after
night after night, and there would be no end to the parade of
politicians and preachers and professional hate merchants telling us
about the evils of White racism. We know that's what would happen,
recently in the dragging death of the Black convict in Jasper, Texas,
this summer.
Now, all of the Black-on-White crimes I've just mentioned -- the
became a mindless vegetable; the kicking of Richard Skelton to death
by a Black mob in Alton, Illinois, when he tried to retrieve his
stolen television set; the murder of seven White prostitutes by a
torture, and murder of 14-year-old Brandy Duvall by members of the
Bloods gang in the Denver area after they had snatched her from a bus
stop -- all of these either occurred during the past month or came to
trial during the past month. And I could have given you twenty more
recent examples of horrible race crimes committed by non-Whites
against Whites which have received the silent treatment by the media,
except in the areas where they occurred. And these are all crimes
which would have received extensive national publicity if they had
been White-on-Black crimes.
Anyway, I hope that I've made my point. And my point is that the
controlled media are far more likely to publicize White-on-Black
crimes than Black-on-White crimes. And this is not just a fluke. It's
not that I have carefully selected a few Black-on-White crimes which
somehow escaped the attention of the media. No, their way of dealing
with interracial crime is systematic. It is consistent. We all
understand that. If the Ku Klux Klan does something, the Jewish media
act as if the sky is falling. If the Bloods or the Crips do something,
they ignore it. There is no denying that. We know it's true.
So why do they do it? If I ask a non-Jewish newspaper writer or
television reporter or magazine editor: "Why do you and your
colleagues minimize the news of Black-on-White crime? Why are you
protective of non-White organizations such as the Bloods and the
Crips? Don't you believe that you have a responsibility to warn the
White public about the dangers posed for us by non-White crime in
general and by non-White gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips in
particular?
"And why do your colleagues maximize the news of any White-on-Black
crime? Why do you go ballistic if there's any possibility of a White
organizational connection, even if some racially oriented literature
is found in the White offender's possession? Don't you understand that
the Bloods and the Crips are essentially anti-White criminal
organizations, while the Klan can only be accused of having members
who sometimes do stupid things? Why do you deliberately create the
false impression in the public mind that White-on-Black crime --
that's what you call "hate crime" -- is a big problem in our society,
and at the same time you hide from the public the truly horrendous and
dangerous problem of Black-on-White crime? Why do you do it?"
I've never gotten really clear and honest answers to these questions.
But what is clear is that they all know how they're expected to report
the news. They know what the party line is. They know which side their
bread is buttered on. It's clear that the top media bosses have set
the fashion for reporting interracial crime, and no one who works for
them is willing to depart from the fashion.
That fashion, which is almost never stated explicitly, which is only
implied, is this: White people are evil -- especially heterosexual
White males. They have persecuted non-Whites for hundreds of years.
White people really shouldn't complain if non-Whites sometimes strike
back at them. That's only justice. When Blacks and Mexicans organize
in gangs, it's only to protect themselves from Whites. But when Whites
organize, it's to oppress non-Whites. Whites need to be reminded that
they are oppressors. That's why White crimes against non-Whites should
be emphasized. And if we're to have a happy and prosperous
multicultural society with lots of diversity, which is of course a
wonderful thing, then Whites need to mix more with non-Whites . . . so
we shouldn't give them any news which might make them reluctant to
mix. We shouldn't tell them about Black crimes against Whites, because
that might frighten White women away from Black men. It might even
lead Whites to organize against non-Whites. In the long run the only
sure way to have a peaceful society, in which everyone gets along with
everyone else, is to get rid of the White majority: to replace the
present White majority with a non-White majority. A lot of racial
mixing and racial intermarriage will help to achieve that, and we
should report the news with that aim in mind.
That is the prevailing fashion in the controlled mass media today,
whether the media people will admit it or not. That fashion has been
set deliberately by the media bosses. And I, curious and inquisitive
person that I am, have looked at where that fashion is taking us, and
when I have done that I have looked into the face of death: racial
death, racial extinction. And I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have
decided that the Jewish media bosses who designed the current fashion
in reporting the news have in fact designed it with that aim in mind.
And I also have decided that it is our responsibility to ourselves, to
our posterity, to our ancestors, and to the God of Nature which made
us what we are to use any and all means -- any and all means -- to
combat these Jewish media bosses and their collaborators in the
government, in the schools, in the churches, and wherever else we find
them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com.
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
or e-mail: nati...@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.
--> TO BE REMOVED from this mailing list, send an e-mail
message to: ADV...@NatVan.com which has "unsubscribe"
as the subject of the message. (Don't type the " marks.)
(c) 1998 National Vanguard Books
The National Alliance
http://www.natvan.com
http://www.natall.com
Icq me at 11163228
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Jacob Ordeberg <jacob.o...@telia.com> wrote in article
<38F3B799...@telia.com>...
> Sorry for the time taken to respond, was busy yesterday...
>
> >> - if others did actively wish development to occur, they would invent,
> >> create, ie develop.
> >
> > No, they wish to develope but have far less geniuses than the White
> > race.
> >
>
> Ok - in other words, all of mankind do develop, but white people do it
> faster, as I understand you. Hope I got it right this time :).
>
The third world may "wish" to develope but any improvements must come
from the inventions of White people.
> >
> > The purpose is to advance the human race. Someday we will reach for
the
> > stars.
> >
> > The earth would be in a bad way without us.
> >
>
> I understand from this that there is no goal more important than
> the advancement of the human race, and that any other goal is
> subordinate to this ultimate goal. Please correct me if I have
> misinterpreted your post.
I don't see any other goals that would compare to it.
>
> If this is correct, then one can think of several situations where
> there would be a conflict between the freedom of the individual and
> this goal.
Exactly
For example, we could picture (white) descendants of
> white colonists in an African country, wishing to live on and have
> children in this country.
>
> Following the laws of racial division, they would have to move to
> Europe or North America. However, as similar displacements in
> Zimbabwe have recently shown, these guys are often very reluctant to
> move. Where would you draw the line? Would they be forced to move,
> as in Zimbabwe?
Whites should have their own nations and Blacks should also have their
own nations. Some Blacks should be allowed to visit White nations but not
be citizens and of course racial intermarriage would not be allowed. What
laws the Blacks have in their own nation is up to them, and we should honor
whatever laws they want. But before we can say that Zimbabwe is for the
Blacks there must be a place for White people and without multi-culture and
pluralism. It is only fair.
>
> How much should the state limit the freedom of the individual?
Whenever there is a very good reason. When a law would clearly make the
nation better or be good for the future.
> Limitations of individual freedom is a part of all societies; ours limit
> the freedom to kill, the freedom to acquire property by use of
> violence or threats of violence etc etc. However, it seems that
> your society would limit the freedom of the individual to a higher
> degree than that of today
> - the freedom of movement and the freedom
> of love would both be restricted.
People should be able to leave the nation whenever they want. They would
have to be accepted before entering the nation. Inter-racial marriage
should be outlawed.
What freedoms could the state demand
> of its citizens to give up for the higher good, in your eyes?
Abortion, prostitution, herion, LSD, slum houses, homosexual perversion,
public drunkeness, public nudity, all things that good people don't do
anyway. Laws should not bother good people.
Jacob Ordeberg
> Jacob Ordeberg <jacob.o...@telia.com> wrote in article
> <38F3B799...@telia.com>...
>> Sorry for the time taken to respond, was busy yesterday...
>>
>> >> create, ie develop.
>> >
>> > No, they wish to develope but have far less geniuses than the White
>> > race.
>> >
>>
>> faster, as I understand you. Hope I got it right this time :).
>>
> The third world may "wish" to develope but any improvements must come
> from the inventions of White people.
>
Ok.
>>> The purpose is to advance the human race. Someday we will reach for
>>> the stars.
>>>
>>> The earth would be in a bad way without us.
>>>
>>
>> I understand from this that there is no goal more important than
>> the advancement of the human race, and that any other goal is
>> subordinate to this ultimate goal. Please correct me if I have
>> misinterpreted your post.
>
> I don't see any other goals that would compare to it.
>
Well, that could be discussed, and has indeed been discussed during the last
2300 years of human thought. Dear old Plato would probably agree with you,
and so would most communists (at least the followers of Marx), but these are
not the only ones to have an opinion. (Even though these two offer different
ways to develop the human race compared with yours, the idea of evolution of
the human race and her society is central in both theories - Plato proposed
development through education and the development of man through class
struggle is central in communist theory).
In the beginning of the first millenium, members of the church defined the
ultimate goal for the state as being the fulfillment of God's will on Earth.
Of course, this ultimate goal has its problems - first you have to have a
God, or at least a general belief in a God, and then you have to have an
indisputable interpreter of God's will (such as a pope). It becomes
problematic when people question the existance of this God or the quality
of the interpreter.
In modern times, a more common definition of the purpose of the state is
that of utilitarianism - the most possible happiness to the most possible
amount of people. Even though its lacks the beautiful utopias of other
theories, it has its strength in its wide acceptance. Most people,
regardless of religion and culture, can probably accept that a state which
tries to make its citizens happy by fulfilling their needs of security and
stability is a rather good state, even though it might not be the best.
Its harder to convince Muslims that the purpose is the fulfillment of the
will of the Christian God or non-national socialists that the purpose is
the human evolution in the national socialist way, than convincing anyone
that the purpose is to make people reasonably happy.
During the last 5-10 years, economic development has been serving as an
alternative purpose in the public discussion - the success of a state
is today more often measured in growth rate. One advantage with this is
that the success can be measured in numbers. All other systems measure
their success in abstract things as 'happiness', 'righteousness' and
'development'. The problem with all these is that they depend on subjective
definitions of these notions - who decides when someone is happy, who
defines righteousness, who tells what development is desirable? As an
example, people today often call it development when black people reach
different high positions in society - a black president would by many be
seen as a marvelous development - and yet, you would probably not use the
word 'development' to describe this. Who should be given the privilege to
decide what developments are positive developments? This last system offers
an easily measurable value as an indicator of a societys development. But
ok, it lacks a lot in dreams and beliefs, that would be a fair criticism :)
>
>> If this is correct, then one can think of several situations where
>> there would be a conflict between the freedom of the individual and
>> this goal.
>
> Exactly
>
>> For example, we could picture (white) descendants of
>> white colonists in an African country, wishing to live on and have
>> children in this country.
>>
>> Following the laws of racial division, they would have to move to
>> Europe or North America. However, as similar displacements in
>> Zimbabwe have recently shown, these guys are often very reluctant to
>> move. Where would you draw the line? Would they be forced to move,
>> as in Zimbabwe?
>
> Whites should have their own nations and Blacks should also have their
> own nations. Some Blacks should be allowed to visit White nations but not
> be citizens and of course racial intermarriage would not be allowed. What
> laws the Blacks have in their own nation is up to them, and we should honor
> whatever laws they want. But before we can say that Zimbabwe is for the
> Blacks there must be a place for White people and without multi-culture and
> pluralism. It is only fair.
>
Ok. I agree that given the premises of your argumentation, this is a fair and
good way to implement the racial division.
>>
>> How much should the state limit the freedom of the individual?
>
> Whenever there is a very good reason. When a law would clearly make the
> nation better or be good for the future.
>
>> Limitations of individual freedom is a part of all societies; ours limit
>> the freedom to kill, the freedom to acquire property by use of
>> violence or threats of violence etc etc. However, it seems that
>> your society would limit the freedom of the individual to a higher
>> degree than that of today - the freedom of movement and the freedom
>> of love would both be restricted.
>
> People should be able to leave the nation whenever they want. They would
> have to be accepted before entering the nation. Inter-racial marriage
> should be outlawed.
>
>> What freedoms could the state demand
>> of its citizens to give up for the higher good, in your eyes?
>
> Abortion, prostitution, herion, LSD, slum houses, homosexual perversion,
> public drunkeness, public nudity, all things that good people don't do
> anyway. Laws should not bother good people.
>
Who decides what 'good people' is? During the height of ancient Greece, both
homosexuality and public nudity were accepted and widely practiced (in the
first Olympic games, the competitors were actually forbidden to wear any
clothes). If we could ask Plato and Aristotle to write laws that forbid all
bad stuff that good people don't do anyway, they would probably outlaw
organised trade. If we could ask a medieval theologist, they would outlaw
banking. If we could ask a 19th century intellectual, contraceptives could
be outlawed. In twohundred years, who knows what is accepted then? Our
society changes all the time, and it is not always we can stop it.
Thank you for having the patience to sift through this rather long post :)
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Jacob Ordeberg <jacob.o...@telia.com> wrote in article
> >> I understand from this that there is no goal more important than
> >> the advancement of the human race, and that any other goal is
> >> subordinate to this ultimate goal. Please correct me if I have
> >> misinterpreted your post.
> >
> > I don't see any other goals that would compare to it.
> >
>
> Well, that could be discussed, and has indeed been discussed during the
last
> 2300 years of human thought. Dear old Plato would probably agree with
you,
> and so would most communists (at least the followers of Marx), but these
are
> not the only ones to have an opinion. (Even though these two offer
different
> ways to develop the human race compared with yours, the idea of evolution
of
> the human race and her society is central in both theories - Plato
proposed
> development through education and the development of man through class
> struggle is central in communist theory).
>
> In the beginning of the first millenium, members of the church defined
the
> ultimate goal for the state as being the fulfillment of God's will on
Earth.
I agree with that. But God's will and the policies of National Socialism
are the same thing. The Nazis outlawed abortion. They outlawed homosexual
perversion and feminism. They outlawed pornagraphy and prostitution. They
removed the race of anti-Christs from controlling the media. They rejected
both the madness of Communism and the greed of Capitalism.
> Of course, this ultimate goal has its problems - first you have to have a
> God, or at least a general belief in a God, and then you have to have an
> indisputable interpreter of God's will (such as a pope). It becomes
> problematic when people question the existance of this God or the quality
> of the interpreter.
>
> In modern times, a more common definition of the purpose of the state is
> that of utilitarianism - the most possible happiness to the most possible
> amount of people.
Again, it is National Socialism that does this. It is like the movie
Metropolis. First this movie shows that
Capitalism is bad. Then it shows that Communism is bad and actually in the
hands of the top Capitalists. In the end it shows a better way, National
Socialism. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the situation
offered him for the future. While on the one hand he organized capitalistic
methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree of efficiency, he curried
favour with the victims of his policy and his power and in a short while
became the leader of their struggle against himself. 'Against himself' is
here only a figurative way of speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies'
knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on
others. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead among the
masses, they never for a moment suspected that they were falling prey to
one of the most infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it
actually was."
Even though its lacks the beautiful utopias of other
> theories, it has its strength in its wide acceptance. Most people,
> regardless of religion and culture, can probably accept that a state
which
> tries to make its citizens happy by fulfilling their needs of security
and
> stability is a rather good state, even though it might not be the best.
National Socialism did this. Even the leftists admit that Germany was in
a bad way before Hitler and that Hitler brought prosperity. He ended
unemployment and tripled wages. He gave unprecedented holiday time and made
things good for people. Hitler used to be dirt poor himself. He was no
phony, but was genuinely for the German people.
> Its harder to convince Muslims that the purpose is the fulfillment of the
> will of the Christian God or non-national socialists that the purpose is
> the human evolution in the national socialist way, than convincing anyone
> that the purpose is to make people reasonably happy.
Hitler was for making people happy. He was also thinking of the
happiness of people in the future. He thought of hundreds or thousands of
years in the future. It is improveing the human race itself that would
make the future great. Farmers know about this when they use selective
breeding to get the best cows and other livestock. Eugenics in humans would
make the future humans better and more intelligent and this is the
foundation that would bring greatness and happiness.
>
> During the last 5-10 years, economic development has been serving as an
> alternative purpose in the public discussion - the success of a state
> is today more often measured in growth rate. One advantage with this is
> that the success can be measured in numbers. All other systems measure
> their success in abstract things as 'happiness', 'righteousness' and
> 'development'. The problem with all these is that they depend on
subjective
> definitions of these notions - who decides when someone is happy, who
> defines righteousness, who tells what development is desirable? As an
> example, people today often call it development when black people reach
> different high positions in society - a black president would by many be
> seen as a marvelous development - and yet, you would probably not use the
> word 'development' to describe this. Who should be given the privilege to
> decide what developments are positive developments? This last system
offers
> an easily measurable value as an indicator of a societys development. But
> ok, it lacks a lot in dreams and beliefs, that would be a fair criticism
:)
>
Germany went from the worst of depression to a great Nation in five
years. There is no better example of developement. Hitler wanted all
Germans to have transportation and promoted the Volkswagon. He made things
the best econmically even though he didn't think economics was the most
important thing.
Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on March 23, 1933 "The Reich
government sees in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the ethics and
morality of the folk."
One of the points on the National Socialist party platform was that the
party was for positive Christianity. This is what it said:
"The party as such, stands for positive Christianity but does not bind
itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession."
If we could ask Plato and Aristotle to write laws that forbid all
> bad stuff that good people don't do anyway, they would probably outlaw
> organised trade. If we could ask a medieval theologist, they would outlaw
> banking.
They were right about banking:
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system.
It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes into
existance today is when it is borrowed. There is no fiixed money supply,
but only borrowed money that needs to be paid back to bankers with
interest. If all the money that was owed to bankers was ever paid back
there would be no money left in circulation and this would be a great
depression. What makes matters even worse is that when money is created
only the principle of the loan is created. The money needed to pay the
interest is never created. For this reason it is impossible to pay back the
principle plus the interest on all of the loans that make up our money
supply. The extra amount of money needed to pay the interest was never
created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal Reserve
Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private stockholders. Other
banks also create the money in our money supply. They are allowed to loan
out much more money then they actually have. Thus they create new money. No
one else is allowed to create money, only bankers have this privilege. All
of our money is debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the
interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come from
the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by the banks.
And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of the name.
Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the Federal Reserve
Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly created money to the
government in exchange for government bonds. To simplify: The United States
does not make its own money. Bankers create the money and loan it to the
United States with an interest charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existance, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he has
agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle forWorld Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which was
legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and , therefore,
the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not only renounced
its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to borrow the
privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the thing being done,
but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and deception to conceal the
essence of the deed. To create money out of nothing is to make valid and
effective claim on all goods and services for no return, which is fraud and
theft, made worse by the circumstances that the money is lent out at
interest...it follows that those who have the power to 'create' out of
nothing all the money in each country and the whole world and lend it as
stated, have total power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press,
individuals and so on. Therefore the power of Parliment in general, and
especially with regard to money, is non-existant, and all the true
sovereignty is in the hands of those private individuals who issue all
money"
If we could ask a 19th century intellectual, contraceptives could
> be outlawed. In twohundred years, who knows what is accepted then? Our
> society changes all the time, and it is not always we can stop it.
>
> Thank you for having the patience to sift through this rather long post
:)
>
It doesn't just change at random. Some people are in power and through
their media propaganda they decide what the changes will be:
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment". It is
subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are from the Aug
1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential
pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a
heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney,
a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic attitudes, now
features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner. On
studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to undermine the
unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and all Jewish -
management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media and
Rule America"
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting System
(CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these three has
been under the absolute control of a single man over a long enough period
of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff the corporation at
every level with officers of his choosing and then to place his imprint
indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities Communications,
Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer
(CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a Jew...In an interview
in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek, Goldenson boasted 'I built this
company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than half
a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the Jewish
"profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the contrary, new
Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at CBS is
Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of reality,
of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior are Jews. In
particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is Tartikoff. Littlefield
is the only Gentile who has had a significant role in TV entertainment
programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment companies
and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross, Jew) Walt
Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top entertainment CEOs
listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a lack of
real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also illustrates the
insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of opinion... The
Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important
ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the
New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's largest trade book publishing
conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsideries; Newhouse
Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87
cable-TV systems, including some of the countries largest cable networks-
the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million
copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker,
Vogue, Madamoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's
Quarterly, Self, Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and
management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines for
nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what
isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the news; the
others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands...The
Suzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co. 36 other
newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the Daily
News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish real-estate developer
Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern,
the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO of
Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled by
Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the president is
Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens books,
with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard
Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner
isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on
our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are
giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Jacob Ordeberg
The main point I wanted to make was that all these different ways of
viewing society, except the last one, depends on someone to define happiness,
righteousness, development etc. According to Stalin, people were probably
happy in the Soviet Union of the 1930s, and while not believing in God, I
guess that he saw the Soviet State as fulfilling the ultimate destiny of
mankind - communism (that's still according Stalin, of course:). The
development of the Soviet State from a agrarian to an industrialised society
is comparable with the economic development in Germany.
(This is, by the way, an area that could be interesting to investigate
further; how these two states (the German and the Soviet) both recovered
remarkably fast from the depression of the early 30's. What similarities/
differences were there between them? But ok, this is hardly the right
newsgroup for such a discussion, and I already have a hard time getting
time to write posts to this one.)
The question is why I should adopt your definition of evolution/happiness/
righteousness. There are literally millions, maybe billions, of different
political ideas circulating in our society, all with their own utopias,
claiming that if we just follow their holy road to the future (by sharing
everything or dividing races), our lives, or at least the lives of our
children, will be oh-so-good. None of these utopias have ever been
established - there are examples where this utopia almost were
reached, but there is always some sad circumstance that prevented this
(Cuba and the US trade blockade for communists, Germany and WWII for
national socialists). But still, they are all based on 'scientific proof'
or 'common sense'. If we simplify - having a believing communist telling
his truths, his proofs for the infallability of communism, and you telling
your truths, why should I believe you rather than the communist? And how
can you be so sure that your truths are truly 'true'?
You'd better discuss this part with an economist :). However, just because
some aspects of banking seem stupid, it doesn't mean the whole system is
stupid. A response to the qoute from WCPC could be that banks both loan
and borrow money - that's why there's interest on our bank accounts. There
is a certain gap between the interest rates here, but that money does not
disappear in a black hole - it simply goes back to consumption through
bank employees, shareholders or through investments. Since I'm not to
well-oriented in financial matter, find an economist to discuss this
with...:)
> If we could ask a 19th century intellectual, contraceptives could
> > be outlawed. In twohundred years, who knows what is accepted then? Our
> > society changes all the time, and it is not always we can stop it.
> >
> > Thank you for having the patience to sift through this rather long post
> :)
> >
> It doesn't just change at random. Some people are in power and through
> their media propaganda they decide what the changes will be:
>
I don't know if I'm all so convinced idea of a conspiracy. Some of the things
of which you write are very true; media reports are more focused on white
people killing black people than black people killing white people. However,
forty years ago, it was pretty much the other way around. I don't know the
exact mechanism behind this, but it could have something to do with little
green papers - some news sell better.
Again, I must ask you can be so confident? Don't you ever doubt
the truth of your claims? (not saying that you're wrong, most people I know
that believes in something - political ideaologies, religions etc. - find
themselves in doubt from time to time, without abandoning their belief)
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
Jacob Ordeberg <jacob.o...@telia.com> wrote in article
>
>
> The main point I wanted to make was that all these different ways of
> viewing society, except the last one, depends on someone to define
happiness,
> righteousness, development etc. According to Stalin, people were probably
> happy in the Soviet Union of the 1930s, and while not believing in God, I
> guess that he saw the Soviet State as fulfilling the ultimate destiny of
> mankind - communism (that's still according Stalin, of course:). The
> development of the Soviet State from a agrarian to an industrialised
society
> is comparable with the economic development in Germany.
>
> (This is, by the way, an area that could be interesting to investigate
> further; how these two states (the German and the Soviet) both recovered
> remarkably fast from the depression of the early 30's. What similarities/
> differences were there between them? But ok, this is hardly the right
> newsgroup for such a discussion, and I already have a hard time getting
> time to write posts to this one.)
I don't think the Communists made things good for people. I don't agree
with that part of your comments.
>
> The question is why I should adopt your definition of
evolution/happiness/
> righteousness. There are literally millions, maybe billions, of different
> political ideas circulating in our society, all with their own utopias,
> claiming that if we just follow their holy road to the future (by sharing
> everything or dividing races), our lives, or at least the lives of our
> children, will be oh-so-good. None of these utopias have ever been
> established - there are examples where this utopia almost were
> reached, but there is always some sad circumstance that prevented this
> (Cuba and the US trade blockade for communists, Germany and WWII for
> national socialists). But still, they are all based on 'scientific proof'
> or 'common sense'.
It is common sense. Happiness and other good things are more to be
found in the first world than in the third world. And the most obvious
difference between the first world and the third world is race.
If we simplify - having a believing communist telling
> his truths, his proofs for the infallability of communism, and you
telling
> your truths, why should I believe you rather than the communist? And how
> can you be so sure that your truths are truly 'true'?
You could be reffering to many different truths but one truth is the
truth of race. It is proven by IQ test. Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. All arguements to the contrary are demolished in
the book "My Awakening" by David Duke.
> You'd better discuss this part with an economist :). However, just
because
> some aspects of banking seem stupid, it doesn't mean the whole system is
> stupid. A response to the qoute from WCPC could be that banks both loan
> and borrow money - that's why there's interest on our bank accounts.
Then can lend out many times more money than they borrowed on accounts.
They therefore have the power to create money. And the people who have this
power are the real rulers in any country. It isn't stupid, it is corrupt
and evil, and it is the whole system that is bad.
There
> is a certain gap between the interest rates here, but that money does not
> disappear in a black hole - it simply goes back to consumption through
> bank employees, shareholders or through investments. Since I'm not to
> well-oriented in financial matter, find an economist to discuss this
> with...:)
>
> >
> I don't know if I'm all so convinced idea of a conspiracy. Some of the
things
> of which you write are very true; media reports are more focused on white
> people killing black people than black people killing white people.
However,
> forty years ago, it was pretty much the other way around. I don't know
the
> exact mechanism behind this, but it could have something to do with
little
> green papers - some news sell better.
Someone is clearly against the White race. Affirmative action openly
descriminates against the White man.
>
> Again, I must ask you can be so confident? Don't you ever doubt
> the truth of your claims? (not saying that you're wrong, most people I
know
> that believes in something - political ideaologies, religions etc. - find
> themselves in doubt from time to time, without abandoning their belief)
>
It is confirmed everyday. If it isn't Black history month it is Native
American history month or something. Everything is against the White man. I
am a White man and the only thing I need to do is find out what party they
hate the most and join it.
" 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 attitide 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."
jesse l nowells
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Alex Vange wrote:
> It is common sense. Happiness and other good things are more to be
> found in the first world than in the third world. And the most obvious
> difference between the first world and the third world is race.
well, happiness can be found anywhere depending on what your criteria for
happiness is & your criteria isn't necessarily the same as mine. my idea
of happiness might revolve around the coexistence of diversity. your idea
of happiness might revolve around the idea of everybody looking the same &
having the same set of values in accordance to yours. & your set of
values isn't necessarily good. i think my idea of happiness derives from a
more reasonable premise than yours since yours is inherently antagonistic
towards anybody not like yourself. i'm not trying to aggrandize my
position but i'm signifying that yours is dangerous & not necessary.
the evident difference between the first & third world is the disparity
between the two in wealth & since the third world is called such in its
relationship to the status of the so-called first world, to assume that
the third world & its peoples are inferior derives out of a presumption
that might makes right because the third world is subjugated by the first
world in the first place. it's a self-fulling prophesy to call people less
by treating them as less.
Dolen
to make in the context of how we should guide our lives. But
this claim is as ambiguous as faith can be. Under what
conditions is god guiding us? Is god a state of mind or a
factual and understandable prescence? If the bible is the
resting place of all of gods words or possible interpretations
then where is our free will to be set?
Truth is a touchy subject, especially trying to find
consensus on particulars. If life and the world we live in
directly led us to percieve that entrenced god interpretations
were true then there would be no cognizant person to doubt that
truth. If science directly led us to structuralist
understanding of truth and existence there whould be consensus
there. The Spectrum stands and emits all values and beliefs
that can be made and proceeded with.
It was the parable of Adam and Eve that highlighted the idea
of knowledge and the open ended nature of sin and free will.
Through this story the Bible itself shows that the nature of man
is not concrete and that truth is as fallable as the question of
whether the fruit was really eaten at all. If truth is to exist
on the level of faith it must not abstract itself too far from
the experiences of the arbiter and interpreter of that faith.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
TAICHI10
First, I would like to say that your post is well written and thoughtful. I
think that TRUTH has two functions. There are truths that are self-evident and
truths that are functional. self-evident truths are from observation.
Functional truths are those that are like rules to a game. The truth depends
on what game you are playing and what rules make that game work. In football
you can tackle the guy with the ball but in baseball that would disrupt the
game. People establish truths that are intended to make life a better game.
like thou shall not shot the quarterback (kill).
If the object of the game is to make life a pleasant experience, the truth is
that killing each other is not a good idea.
Back to self-evident truths. To my way of thinking, it is self-evident that
this reality has a creator because it has design and function not inconsistent
chaos. I have designed and built functional mechanisms and know that things do
not become reality through random activity. Without the designer and the
manufacturer nothing gets made. It is self-evident that the reality in which
we exist has a creator and that creator by definition is God. Fortunately, God
is benevolent and this truth is evidenced by the quality of people's lives if
they live by the rules. Faith is not the same as truth. We need to have faith
in what is true and good. It does not matter if Adam and Eve ate the apple,
what matters is that this is not a paradise, it is a functional place to
experience life. From there we design and build our lifestyles, our societies,
our products and much of our environment. I have to agree with Pogo that we
have met the enemy and they are us. We need to do what is fair and good,
Dave