Why the Left and Right meet around the circle.

[Andy Wainwright]

Two facets I've noticed concerning "leftwingers" and "rightwingers" alike.

One is a higher trust placed in politicians and the state than in the
citizen

Number two is a high level of "social relativism". This trait is best
described as "I deserve a bigger house, better car, more civil rights
etc than Mr Jones next door". It's quite distinct from wanting something
for oneself, it's wanting to deny to others something. The left often
seem to want to lower the incomes of the better off even if it doesn't
mean an increase for them, the right very often take the same line with
the poorer sections.

Taken to the extreme, the revolutionary manifestos of communism and
fascism aren't actually revolutionary at all, but very
pro-establishment- they're about conformity, homogenity and denial of
the individual. Essentially the only difference between the two is one
seeks economic "fairness" at any cost, the other economic "growth" in
the same way.

In the UK political scene, arguably the most radical is the Tory "left"
(and to some extent the LibDem "right") . Two relatively recent
politicians who seem to embody this ethos were Mark Oaten and Michael
Portillo. Whilst US politics is a differnt kettle of fish, there Ron
Paul has talked about the "ridiculously authoritarian" nature of
establishment politicians there- again, showing up the distrust of Joe
Citizen shown by left and right alike. Perhaps the most revolutionary
aspect of all of such schools of thought is they challenge materialism,
compared to the authoritarian left and right who simply argue that the
cake be divided up differently instead of say, baking a new cake.

This alternative places a lesser but by far more useful set of roles for
the state. First is maximising freedom by providing an arbitration
mechanism where individuals, families and organisations can settle
difference lawfully. This is the "individualistic" roll. The second is
the "collective" one, which could be seen as alieviating poverty,
disease and ignorance.

This suggests that what we term "morality" is best left to the churches,
mosques, temples and synogogues- the only ones that concern the state
are of freedom and alms. The more the state tries to legislate moral
codes beyond this, the more the citizen's moral mind is muddled and the
more ethnic or sectarian tension is stirred up.

[tooly]

-------------
Gist I get is that you might have an interesting insight, but I apologize, my paultry brain is lacking. Could you be more simplistic and to the point so one as myself might see where you are going on this. In a nutshell. It might help me to know your innate allegiance; or perhaps anarchist [which I allocate as a leftist ally]. No 'side' is perfect, each has it's virtues [left and right]; I myself was more 'liberal' when younger, but I 'grew up' and 'gained experience' etc. I see my former liberal self with disdain now, not for 'intent', but for sheer stupidity and arrogance bound in total 'clue-less-ness' about the 'real world'.

Ah...but tommorrow, I will be 'now' stupider still. In final comprise, at least for myself, I just want to be 'left alone'. For that END, conservatism fits the bill nicely as 'live and let live', while only radicals from the left always seem to want to hassle me, cause unrest, and CHANGE that always means me having to 'give up something' far more than 'gaining sometthing'.

LEAVE US ALONE; we need that flag like the 'Don't Tread on me' one.

[Bret Cahill]

> Taken to the extreme, the revolutionary manifestos of communism and
> fascism aren't actually revolutionary at all, but very
> pro-establishment-

You only have 2 directions:

Democratic freedom or despotism.

Every other distinction is useless.


Bret Cahill

[saracene]

So speaks a fanatic for democracy, presumably some kind of American
imperialist wanting to spread revolution around the world. Sometimes
democracy means freedom, when the mentality of the people is ready for
it. In other circumstances it means civil war.

[Bret Cahill]

> > > Taken to the extreme, the revolutionary manifestos of communism and
> > > fascism aren't actually revolutionary at all, but very
> > > pro-establishment-
>
> > You only have 2 directions:
>
> > Democratic freedom or despotism.
>
> > Every other distinction is useless.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> So speaks a fanatic for democracy,

Extremeism in defense of freedom is no vice.

-- Goldwater

> presumably some kind of American
> imperialist wanting to spread revolution around the world.

The internet will do that free of charge.

> Sometimes
> democracy means freedom,

Whereas no meaningful elections always means despotism.

> when the mentality of the people is ready for
> it. In other circumstances it means civil war.

After 2 centuries of riots the Mideast will become somewhat
democratic.


Bret Cahill

[saracene]

On May 6, 8:21 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Taken to the extreme, the revolutionary manifestos of communism and
> > > > fascism aren't actually revolutionary at all, but very
> > > > pro-establishment-
>
> > > You only have 2 directions:
>
> > > Democratic freedom or despotism.
>
> > > Every other distinction is useless.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > So speaks a fanatic for democracy,
>
> Extremeism in defense of freedom is no vice.
>
> -- Goldwater

He wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

>
> > presumably some kind of American
> > imperialist wanting to spread revolution around the world.
>
> The internet will do that free of charge.
>
> > Sometimes
> > democracy means freedom,
>
> Whereas no meaningful elections always means despotism.

Eighteenth century England was not a democracy. Nor was the Roman
Republic.

>
> > when the mentality of the people is ready for
> > it. In other circumstances it means civil war.
>
> After 2 centuries of riots the Mideast will become somewhat
> democratic.

Your faith. Perhaps the whole world will become .some tyrannical
empire.
>
> Bret Cahill

[Ste]

On May 6, 12:06 am, Andy Wainwright

<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Two facets I've noticed concerning "leftwingers" and "rightwingers" alike.
>
> One is a higher trust placed in politicians and the state than in the
> citizen

Probably because *any* sensible political thinker, any person who
recognises the social concept of "citizenry", relies on some sort of
formal organisation recognisable as "government".

> Number two is a high level of "social relativism". This trait is best
> described as "I deserve a bigger house, better car, more civil rights
> etc than Mr Jones next door". It's quite distinct from wanting something
> for oneself, it's wanting to deny to others something. The left often
> seem to want to lower the incomes of the better off even if it doesn't
> mean an increase for them, the right very often take the same line with
> the poorer sections.

Again, this is because sensible political thinkers are not normally
seeking personal income maximisation, but are struggling over the
distribution of power. For the poor community, the worst another poor
man might do is shoot you with a pistol before he is overwhelmed by
others - a rich man will carpet bomb you out of existence. Looked at
like this, is does not really matter whether depriving the rich man of
the carpet bombs means that they fall into your hands or not - the
important thing is that he doesn't have anything that you don't,
because if he does he is prone to use it against you with impunity.
Similarly, the rich man doesn't care if the degradation of the poor
leads to no absolute improvement in his own means - he wants the
freedom to shoot and bomb people, and he is better enabled to do so
scot free, if those who previously had guns and bombs like him, no
longer do so.

So yes, the left and right do not hugely differ in their formulation
of the problem as being a class conflict. The crucial difference is
whose side you are on!

> Taken to the extreme, the revolutionary manifestos of communism and
> fascism aren't actually revolutionary at all, but very
> pro-establishment- they're about conformity, homogenity and denial of
> the individual. Essentially the only difference between the two is one
> seeks economic "fairness" at any cost, the other economic "growth" in
> the same way.

The only people who talk about "the individual" are the rich, so that
they can dismantle public democratic institutions, and replace them
with their own exclusive gentlemen's clubs, informal social networks,
and unexamined ideologies. Much as how they only talk about "the right
to work" when workers are on picket lines, not when workers are on the
dole.

There is no greater and large-scale denial of individual freedom, than
in societies with huge economic inequalities between rich and poor.
Mostly, even the rich are highly constrained by their need to hold on
to wealth - but not nearly as constrained as the poor, who even in an
environment of great abudance and the highest technology, might
struggle to exercise the freedom to eat.

> In the UK political scene, arguably the most radical is the Tory "left"
> (and to some extent the LibDem "right") . Two relatively recent
> politicians who seem to embody this ethos were Mark Oaten and Michael
> Portillo. Whilst US politics is a differnt kettle of fish, there Ron
> Paul has talked about the "ridiculously authoritarian" nature of
> establishment politicians there- again, showing up the distrust of Joe
> Citizen shown by left and right alike. Perhaps the most revolutionary
> aspect of all of such schools of thought is they challenge materialism,
> compared to the authoritarian left and right who simply argue that the
> cake be divided up differently instead of say, baking a new cake.

The left in general do not argue against the baking of a new cake. But
with the rich having already seized 99% of the existing cake (despite
your protests that we should not fight over these things), what makes
you think that the rightwing will allow another cake to be baked
without also seizing 99% of that?

All you do Andy is mislead some people (including yourself) who
recognise that there is a problem, into thinking that there is some
solution that doesn't involve the rich stealing less of the cake that
is available at any one time. The quintessential hand-wringing liberal
- who knows there is a problem with distribution, but can't bear to
acknowledge its effective solution: redistribution.

> This alternative places a lesser but by far more useful set of roles for
> the state. First is maximising freedom by providing an arbitration
> mechanism where individuals, families and organisations can settle
> difference lawfully. This is the "individualistic" roll. The second is
> the "collective" one, which could be seen as alieviating poverty,
> disease and ignorance.

In other words, a law and order role (arbitrating differences), a
redistributive role (alleviating poverty), and a public services role
(alleviating disease and ignorance).

[Andy Wainwright]

I certainly recognise the need for redistribution. I like the older term
for this- "alms". I'm still leftist in that I believe that when too much
money ends up in a few hands democracy and lawfulness suffers, as well
as being idealist when it comes to releaving poverty.

Where I've moved to the right is that I'm increasingly sceptical of a
government's ability to achieve this. Quite often, in the name of a good
cause, the state have made the situation worse.

Blair and Brown might be a long way removed from Lenin and Trotsky etc,
but at the same time even the very moderate socialists of "New Labour"
demonstrated many of the principles discussed in Orwell's Animal Farm.
Long standing activists were pushed aside (in the case of Walter
Wolfgang, actually physically attacked) in favour of fairweather friends
that wouldn't give a shit about Labour if they weren't in power.

True democracy is more than about minorities and majorities, it's about
ensuring the interests of all are represented. The rich could even be
called a minority in their own rights, and the law should be available
to them too.

Despite the Tory right, including essentially a spin off of that, UKIP,
making the headlines, far more encouraging noises have been made by
the centrist element of this government.

I like the idea of ideals without ideology- I'd call this practical
socialism. We take the real achievements of the leftist movement, such
as health, safety , welfare, social housing, the vote, women's rights,
anti-racism and so forth, but leave behind the jealousy towards the
higher classes and richer elements as well as that against private business.

[Ste]

On May 6, 3:10 pm, Andy Wainwright

What about older terms like "sturdy beggar" and "deserving poor"?

> I'm still leftist in that I believe that when too much
> money ends up in a few hands democracy and lawfulness suffers, as well
> as being idealist when it comes to releaving poverty.
>
> Where I've moved to the right is that I'm increasingly sceptical of a
> government's ability to achieve this. Quite often, in the name of a good
> cause, the state have made the situation worse.

In what area? Did the postwar reforms of the (old) Labour government,
or the European Union project, really make things worse for ordinary
people than the two world wars and the hunger marches of the 1930s?

> Blair and Brown might be a long way removed from Lenin and Trotsky etc,
> but at the same time even the very moderate socialists of "New Labour"
> demonstrated many of the principles discussed in Orwell's Animal Farm.
> Long standing activists were pushed aside (in the case of Walter
> Wolfgang, actually physically attacked) in favour of fairweather friends
> that wouldn't give a shit about Labour if they weren't in power.

Why does anyone think that the bastard leaders of New Labour are the
best we could possibly do? Does anyone think, say, Tony Benn would
have presided over an old man being wrestled to the ground and bundled
away by heavies for protesting against war? People are tolerating
authoritarian leaders like Tony Bliar for now, just as they are
letting Osborne sink the economy as a whole to preserve the wealth of
the rich, but don't for one moment suggest that there is or was no
alternative.

> True democracy is more than about minorities and majorities, it's about
> ensuring the interests of all are represented. The rich could even be
> called a minority in their own rights, and the law should be available
> to them too.

The rich *are* a minority, and they have the best access to the law of
all - for the most part, they wrote it!

> Despite the Tory right, including essentially a spin off of that, UKIP,
>    making the headlines, far more encouraging noises have been made by
> the centrist element of this government.
>
> I like the idea of ideals without ideology- I'd call this practical
> socialism. We take the real achievements of the leftist movement, such
> as health, safety , welfare, social housing, the vote, women's rights,
> anti-racism and so forth, but leave behind the jealousy towards the
> higher classes and richer elements as well as that against private business.

There is nothing ideological about insisting that the rich have too
much of the pie, and that they are using their wealth and power over
time to increase their grab of the pie at the same time as assaulting
democracy and liberal values (and the conditions on which they depend).

[Topaz]

WHAT IS FASCISM?

By James Miller, PhD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###


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





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

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

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 16:35:04 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>WHAT IS FASCISM?
>
>By James Miller, PhD
>
>Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation.

It's the way they kept invading people...

It Pisses reasonable people right off...

[Andy Wainwright]

Some valid points.

But here's an example about how I tick.

Take Richard Branson. I think he should be given a full state pension
and a bus pass. Ditto Alan Sugar and so forth.

You might ask why I think we should give away stuff to rich people who
really don't need it.

But there's logic. Means-tested welfare- i.e. giving benfits based on
income amounts to a hefty tax on the socially-mobile poor. Many are in
the situation that earn a quid, they can actually lose more dole than that.

A much more fair welfare system is to democratically agree what
constitutes the poverty line, and pay that to everyone, eqally. Of
course ther could be bonuses for old age, disability and previous NI
scheme contributions, and maybe deductions for new immigrants for a
qualifying period.

That way, we can beat absolute poverty, but at the same time ensure that
everyone benefits by working or working harder. The current situation
for example discriminates heavily against part timers, and thus the
disabled as many can only work part time.

Instead of trying to force people into work that doesn't exist, and turn
the hard-working against the unemployed, the unemployed against
immigrants and so forth, we could say it's a free choice between time
and money. Don't work, have little money but a lot of time, work long
hours in a high-skill job, have a lot of money and little time. Most
would go somewhere in between.

Instead of making those who don't want to work sign on and go through
various hoops, we could use all those job centre staff to really help
those who do want a job.

Let the citizen choose. Same with drugs, sex, gambling and so forth.
Trying to make decisions for people takes away thyeir ability to make
responsible decisons.

There's always going to be antisocial and lazy people. Thing is though
there is Karma- when a theif realises that everything they steal will be
stolen back, they stop stealing. Some countries people are desperately
poor and mugging a wealthy tourist could grab them a years wages- yet
those people usually don't, because they're not stupid. Why kill the
goose that lays the golden egg? Even if they get away scott free,
they'll know that the money they've nicked doesn't belong to them, which
spoils the enjoyment of that money.

Lots of politicans promise crap and they can't even deliver it- the
intelligent option is to do the reverse.

Take immigration- all these tough talkers make legal migration harder,
benefiting people smugglers, criminal migrants who don't care for the
law anyway, and illegal immigrant labour that undercuts legal native
workers.

By contrast, we could ensure that unreformed criminals are kept out or
deported. We could in most cases ask those coming over to pay into
public coffers before making a claim on them.

It's common for politicans to talk "tough" on lots of issues, but what
it means is draconian laws that are badly enforced that criminals
ignore, and police, courts and prisons are filled up with mostly
harmless people just unlucky to fall foul of a technicality.

Let's face it, if police are busting a brothel they're not busting a
rapist, ditto drug user and burglar.

Like so many other things in life, law amounts to less is more. Not just
criminal but civil and every other aspect of the legal system and state.
Complexity creates loopholes. Draconian rules create hypocracy.

[Bret Cahill]

> > > > > Taken to the extreme, the revolutionary manifestos of communism and
> > > > > fascism aren't actually revolutionary at all, but very
> > > > > pro-establishment-
>
> > > > You only have 2 directions:
>
> > > > Democratic freedom or despotism.
>
> > > > Every other distinction is useless.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > So speaks a fanatic for democracy,
>
> > Extremeism in defense of freedom is no vice.
>
> > -- Goldwater
>
> He wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

Even idiots know extremism in defense of freedom is no vice.

> > > presumably some kind of American
> > > imperialist wanting to spread revolution around the world.
>
> > The internet will do that free of charge.
>
> > > Sometimes
> > > democracy means freedom,
>
> > Whereas no meaningful elections always means despotism.
>
> Eighteenth century England was not a democracy.

And Jefferson called George III a despot in the DoI.

Any other earth shaking observations?

. . .

> > After 2 centuries of riots the Mideast will become somewhat
> > democratic.
>
> Your faith. Perhaps the whole world will become .some tyrannical
> empire.

Impossible with cheap communications.

The legacy media and Mideast despots struggle in vain against CAC.


Bret Cahill

[Andy Wainwright]

Dr Miller from what I've read has a fairly decent IQ. However, he lacks
even the most rudementary metaphysical intellect. It's often the case-
I've a very high IQ but have big problems with social skills for
example. You can't have everything, and minds tend to be a lot more
equal when everything is taken in to consideration.

In fact most with learning disabilities have a better grasp of
philosophy concepts than Dr Miller has. Thus he's a prisoner of his own
mind, a slave. Most racists are, by contrast the free man has no-one
below him and only God above. Freedom is most important for the
intelligent, the follow-my-leader approach is for people to thick to
think for themselves.

[Topaz]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 23:12:13 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>
>>Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation.
>
>It's the way they kept invading people...
>
>It Pisses reasonable people right off...

By Mark Weber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

[Topaz]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 01:18:07 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:


>Dr Miller from what I've read has a fairly decent IQ. However, he lacks
>even the most rudementary metaphysical intellect.

The Jews control your media and your mind.

This is what President Nixon said:

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html

"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."

> It's often the case-
>I've a very high IQ but have big problems with social skills for
>example. You can't have everything, and minds tend to be a lot more
>equal when everything is taken in to consideration.
>
>In fact most with learning disabilities have a better grasp of
>philosophy concepts than Dr Miller has. Thus he's a prisoner of his own
>mind, a slave. Most racists are,

The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.

All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.

> by contrast the free man has no-one
>below him and only God above. Freedom is most important for the
>intelligent, the follow-my-leader approach is for people to thick to
>think for themselves.

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andy Wainwright]

On 07/05/2013 02:24, Topaz wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 01:18:07 +0100, Andy Wainwright
> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Dr Miller from what I've read has a fairly decent IQ. However, he lacks
>> even the most rudementary metaphysical intellect.
>
> The Jews control your media and your mind.
>

Nope, you're the victim of shite media, not me. You've obviously not had
any meaningful relationships either sexual or platonic, or you wouldn't
be obsessed with crude tabloid demographics such as "race".

Class means more to me as an English person. I'm not a commie with a
class war mentality. However, real class is something more than money or
looks. That's the difference between an genuine aristocrat and a robber
barron.

Someone who wishes to lord over "inferiors" isn't part of any master
race at all. A true noble serves his people, not one person excluded, he
leads those not feeds off them. He doesn't need to show off his wealth
or anything else, he only asks for the tools he needs to do his job.
Similalry he doesn't have to fight for anything other than right against
wrong- if he has to kill and hurt to get ahead, it is a game not worth
playing.

Power is not authority. Authority is what counts in a leader- that those
he leads submit not through force but to that leader's wisdom and
experience.

Of course you can fight tooth and nail to grab what you can and be top
dog- but if you do that, you're being a dog not a person.

[saracene]

>
> > > > > You only have 2 directions:
>
> > > > > Democratic freedom or despotism.
>
> > > > > Every other distinction is useless.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > So speaks a fanatic for democracy,
>
> > > Extremeism in defense of freedom is no vice.
>
> > > -- Goldwater
>
> > He wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
>
> Even idiots know extremism in defense of freedom is no vice.

What's freedom?

>
> > > > presumably some kind of American
> > > > imperialist wanting to spread revolution around the world.
>
> > > The internet will do that free of charge.
>
> > > > Sometimes
> > > > democracy means freedom,
>
> > > Whereas no meaningful elections always means despotism.
>
> > Eighteenth century England was not a democracy.
>
> And Jefferson called George III a despot in the DoI.
>
> Any other earth shaking observations?

As an American imperialist you are soaked in that corny that
revolutionary rhetoric. British people know it is absurd to think of
Farmer George thus,

>
> . . .
>
> > > After 2 centuries of riots the Mideast will become somewhat
> > > democratic.
>
> > Your faith. Perhaps the whole world will become .some tyrannical
> > empire.
>
> Impossible with cheap communications.

Fatuous American optimism.

[Ste]

And as workers around the world have found, these principles are a
contradiction in terms - and that, in fact, under fascism, it is free
enterprise and the interests of the rich that trumps any concern for
"our nation's people" (and of course, woe betide any workers *not*
considered "our nation's people").

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

Does anyone really think that the Nazis maintained a "high moral
standard"? And much of what is considered "corrupting filth" is merely
criticism of the leadership and pointing out how corrupt and self-
serving they are.

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

Again, woe betide the people at the hands of the fascist who is also
an environmentalist.

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

Lol. Again, exactly how many people were set free from concentration
camps, to live their lives in exile?

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

In other words, encouraged to get back into the kitchen.

[Ste]

On May 7, 1:09 am, Andy Wainwright

I think so too.

> You might ask why I think we should give away stuff to rich people who
> really don't need it.
>
> But there's logic. Means-tested welfare- i.e. giving benfits based on
> income amounts to a hefty tax on the socially-mobile poor. Many are in
> the situation that earn a quid, they can actually lose more dole than that.
>
> A much more fair welfare system is to democratically agree what
> constitutes the poverty line, and pay that to everyone, eqally. Of
> course ther could be bonuses for old age, disability and previous NI
> scheme contributions, and maybe deductions for new immigrants for a
> qualifying period.
>
> That way, we can beat absolute poverty, but at the same time ensure that
> everyone benefits by working or working harder. The current situation
> for example discriminates heavily against part timers, and thus the
> disabled as many can only work part time.
>
> Instead of trying to force people into work that doesn't exist, and turn
> the hard-working against the unemployed, the unemployed against
> immigrants and so forth, we could say it's a free choice between time
> and money. Don't work, have little money but a lot of time, work long
> hours in a high-skill job, have a lot of money and little time. Most
> would go somewhere in between.

Indeed. The appopriate "means test" is the one applied when
determining the rate of tax that you pay.

> Instead of making those who don't want to work sign on and go through
> various hoops, we could use all those job centre staff to really help
> those who do want a job.
>
> Let the citizen choose. Same with drugs, sex, gambling and so forth.
> Trying to make decisions for people takes away thyeir ability to make
> responsible decisons.
>
> There's always going to be antisocial and lazy people. Thing is though
> there is Karma- when a theif realises that everything they steal will be
> stolen back, they stop stealing. Some countries people are desperately
> poor and mugging a wealthy tourist could grab them a years wages- yet
> those people usually don't, because they're not stupid. Why kill the
> goose that lays the golden egg? Even if they get away scott free,
> they'll know that the money they've nicked doesn't belong to them, which
> spoils the enjoyment of that money.
>
> Lots of politicans promise crap and they can't even deliver it- the
> intelligent option is to do the reverse.
>
> Take immigration- all these tough talkers make legal migration harder,
> benefiting people smugglers, criminal migrants who don't care for the
> law anyway, and illegal immigrant labour that undercuts legal native
> workers.
>
> By contrast, we could ensure that unreformed criminals are kept out or
> deported.

Deportation might be appropriate for criminals who are merely on
holiday here. It's not appropriate for people who do in fact live here
- at best, you're just flushing your toilet onto another society. It's
also hardly appropriate in cases where the nature of the crime is
influenced by their treatment here.

If, for example, you accept in a family of refugees, you'd expect to
help them get a car, get a job, and welcome them into the local pub,
in other words integrate them. You wouldn't put them on the dole for
10 years, prohibit them from work, and in essence induct them into the
poverty and misery of the underclass who are de facto (if not de jure)
excluded from work and from any normal lifestyle.

> We could in most cases ask those coming over to pay into
> public coffers before making a claim on them.

It rather depends on what sort of characters immigrants tend to be. In
my experience, they are decent and hardworking people. We have this
surreal situation at the moment, where immigrants are accused of both
taking jobs *and* leeching from the benefit system.

> It's common for politicans to talk "tough" on lots of issues, but what
> it means is draconian laws that are badly enforced that criminals
> ignore, and police, courts and prisons are filled up with mostly
> harmless people just unlucky to fall foul of a technicality.
>
> Let's face it, if police are busting a brothel they're not busting a
> rapist, ditto drug user and burglar.
>
> Like so many other things in life, law amounts to less is more. Not just
> criminal but civil and every other aspect of the legal system and state.
> Complexity creates loopholes. Draconian rules create hypocracy.

What is important is to have, as much as possible, a liberal and
tolerant society, and to have the law reflect that.

[Topaz]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 02:59:45 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:


>Nope, you're the victim of shite media, not me. You've obviously not had
>any meaningful relationships either sexual or platonic, or you wouldn't
>be obsessed with crude tabloid demographics such as "race".

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

>
>Class means more to me as an English person. I'm not a commie with a
>class war mentality. However, real class is something more than money or
>looks. That's the difference between an genuine aristocrat and a robber
>barron.
>
>Someone who wishes to lord over "inferiors" isn't part of any master
>race at all.

Some National Socialists may have said "Herrenvolk"

"'Herrenvolk' can be translated into "noble race" and/or "superior
race". Yet for some reason the English speaking translators chose and
made popular the term 'master race.'"

Heidi

Rudolf Hess, on May 25, 1948, was asked by Dr. Maurice Walsh, U.S.
psychiatrist, if he believed in a Master Race. Hess smiled and replied
that "he had never used the expression", and that they were not used
in Germany.

The speeches of National Socialists are known. All you have to do is
put "Hitler speeches" or "Goebbels Speeches" in your search engine.
But apparently "master race" is not to be found in them anywhere.

The closest thing in Mein Kampf is at the end of the book and simply
tells the truth:

"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself
to the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must
one day become ruler of the Earth."

Goebbels wrote:
"The German nation will be the intellectual leader of civilized
humanity."
Joseph Goebbels, "Das Jahr 2000," Das Reich, 25 February 1945, pp.
1-2.

> A true noble serves his people, not one person excluded, he
>leads those not feeds off them. He doesn't need to show off his wealth
>or anything else, he only asks for the tools he needs to do his job.
>Similalry he doesn't have to fight for anything other than right against
>wrong- if he has to kill and hurt to get ahead, it is a game not worth
>playing.
>
>Power is not authority. Authority is what counts in a leader- that those
>he leads submit not through force but to that leader's wisdom and
>experience.
>
>Of course you can fight tooth and nail to grab what you can and be top
>dog- but if you do that, you're being a dog not a person.

[Topaz]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 00:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>And as workers around the world have found, these principles are a
>contradiction in terms - and that, in fact, under fascism, it is free
>enterprise and the interests of the rich that trumps any concern for
>"our nation's people" (and of course, woe betide any workers *not*
>considered "our nation's people").

Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former
leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS:

"One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers
was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French
Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the
concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per
year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as
generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.

Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right
to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they
applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the
younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other
hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out
blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more
generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of
rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just
coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve
days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years
with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.

These figures may have been surpassed in the more than half a
century since then, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms. As
for overtime hours, they no longer were paid, as they were everywhere
else in Europe at that time, at just the regular hourly rate. The
work day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours,
since the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by
Hitler. And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be
paid at a considerably increased rate...

Dismissal of an employee was no longer left as before the
sole discretion of the employer. In that era, workers' rights to job
security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were
strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four
weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months
in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by
the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also
called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three
great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the
benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council
of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.

The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the
establishment and the development of a real community spirit between
management and labor. In any business enterprise, the Reich law
stated, the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and
workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the
goal of the enterprise and the common good of
the nation...

Thus from 1933 on, the German worker had a system of justice
at his disposal that was created especially for him and would
adjudicate all grave infractions of the social duties based on the
idea of the Aryan enterprise community. Examples of these violations
of social honor are cases where the employer, abusing his power,
displayed ill will towards his staff or impugned the honor of his
subordinates, cases where staff members threatened work harmony by
spiteful agitation; the publication by members of the Council of
confidential information regarding the enterprise which they
became cognizant of in the course of discharging their duties.
Thirteen Tribunes of Social Honor were established, corresponding
with the thirteen commissions...

From then on the worker knew that exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or offending his honor would no longer be
allowed. He had to fulfill certain obligations to the community, but
they were obligations that applied to all members of the enterprise,
from the chief executive down to the messenger boy. Germany's workers
at last had clearly established social rights that were arbitrated by
a Labor Commission and enforced by a Tribunal of Honor. Although
effected in an atmosphere of justice and moderation, it was a
revolution.

This was only the end of 1933, and already the first effects
could be felt. The factories and shops large and small were reformed
or transformed in conformity with the strictest standards of
cleanliness and hygiene; the interior areas, so often dilapidated,
opened to light; playing fields constructed; rest areas made
available where one could converse at one's ease and relax during
rest periods; employee cafeterias; proper dressing rooms.

With time, that is to say in three years, those achievements
would take on dimensions never before imagined; more than 2,000
factories refitted and beautified; 23,000 work premises modernized;
800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing
fields;
13,000 sanitary facilities with running water; 17,000 cafeterias.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors
would foster and closely and continuously supervise these renovations
and installations.

The large industrial establishments moreover had been given
the obligation of preparing areas not only suitable for sports
activities of all kinds, but provided with swimming pools as well.
Germany had come a long way from the sinks for washing one's face and
the dead tired workers, grown old before their time, crammed into
squalid courtyards during work breaks.

In order to ensure the natural development of the working
class, physical education courses were instituted for the younger
workers; 8,000 such were organized. Technical training would be
equally emphasized, with the creation of hundreds of work schools,
technical courses and examinations of professional competence, and
competitive examinations for the best workers for which large prizes
were awarded.

To rejuvenate young and old alike, Hitler ordered that a
gigantic vacation organization for workers be set up. Hundreds of
thousands of workers would be able every summer to relax on the
sea. Magnificent cruise ships would be built. Special trains would
carry vacationers to the mountains and to the seashore. The
locomotives that hauled the innumerable worker-tourists in
just a few years of travel in Germany would log a distance equivalent
to fifty-four times around the world!

The cost of these popular excursions was nearly insignificant,
thanks to greatly reduced rates authorized by the Reichsbank.

Didn't these reforms lack something? Were some of them flawed
by errors and blunders? It is possible. But what did a blunder amount
to alongside the immense gains?

That this transformation of the working class smacked of
authoritarianism? That's exactly right. But the German people were
sick and tired of socialism and anarchy. To feel commanded didn't
bother them a bit. In fact, people have always liked having a strong
man guide them. One thing for certain is that the turn of mind of the
working class, which was still almost two-thirds non-Nazi in 1933,
had completely changed.

The Belgian author Marcel Laloire would note: "When you make
your way through the cities of Germany and go into the working-class
districts, go through the factories, the construction yards, you are
astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting the Hitler
insignia, to see so many flags with the Swastika, black on a bright
red background, in the most populous districts." The Labor Front that
Hitler imposed on all of the workers and employers of the Reich was
for the most part received with favor.

And already the steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the
National Labor Service could be seen gleaming along the highways. The
National Labor Service had been created by Hitler out of thin air to
bring together for a few months in absolute equality, and in the same
uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the poorest
families. All had to perform the same work and were subject to the
same discipline, even the same pleasures and the same physical and
moral development. On the same construction sites and in the same
living quarters, they had become conscious of their commonality, had
come to understand one another, and had swept away their
old prejudices of class and caste. After this hitch in the National
Labor Service they all began to live as comrades, the workers knowing
that the rich man's son was not a monster, and the young lad from the
wealthy family knowing that the worker's son had honor just
like any other young fellow who had been more generously
favored by birth. Social hatred was disappearing, and a socially
united people was being born.

Hitler could already go into factories, something no man of the
so-called Right before him would have risked doing, and hold forth to
the mob of workers, tens of thousands of them at a time, as in the
Siemens works. In contrast to the von Papens and other country
gentlemen, he might tell them, "In my youth I was a worker like you.
And in my heart of hearts, I have remained what I was then." In the
course of his twelve years in power, no incident ever occurred at any
factory Adolf Hitler ever visited. When Hitler was among the people,
he was at home, and he was received like the member of
the family who had been most successful."

>Does anyone really think that the Nazis maintained a "high moral
>standard"?

The Jews control your media and your mind.

This is what President Nixon said:

http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html

"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."

> And much of what is considered "corrupting filth" is merely
>criticism of the leadership and pointing out how corrupt and self-
>serving they are.

>Again, woe betide the people at the hands of the fascist who is also
>an environmentalist.

It's important to protect the environment.

>Lol. Again, exactly how many people were set free from concentration
>camps, to live their lives in exile?

ADOLF HITLER
SCHWERIN, GUSTLOFF'S FUNERAL
SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936

. . . BEHIND every murder stood the same power which is responsible
for this murder; behind these harmless insignificant fellow-countrymen
who were instigated and incited to crime stands the hate-filled power
of our Jewish foe, a foe to whom we had done no harm, but who none the
less sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave -
the foe who is responsible for all the misfortune that fell upon us in
1918, for all the misfortune which plagued Germany in the years that
followed. Those members of the Party and honorable comrades of ours
all fell, and the same fate was planned for others: many hundreds
survived as cripples or severely wounded, blinded or lamed; more than
40,000 others were injured. And among them were so many loyal folk
whom we all knew and who were near and dear to us, of whom we were
sure that they could never do any harm to anyone, that they had never
done any harm to anyone, whose only crime was that they devoted
themselves to the cause of Germany.

In the ranks of those whose lives were thus sacrificed there stood
also Horst Wessel, the singer who gave to the Movement its song, never
dreaming that he would join those spirits who march and have marched
with us.

And now on foreign soil National Socialism has gained its first
conscious martyr - a man who did nothing save to enter the lists for
Germany which is not only his sacred right but his duty in this world:
a man who did nothing save remember his homeland and pledge himself to
her in loyalty. He, too, was murdered, just like so many others. Even
at the time when on January 30 three years ago we had come into power,
precisely the same things happened in Germany, at Frankfort on the
Oder, at Köpenick, and again at Brunswick. The procedure was always
the same: a few men come and call someone out of his house and then
stab or shoot him down.

That is no chance: it is the same guiding hand which organized these
crimes and purposes to do so again. Now for the first time one who is
responsible for these acts has appeared in his own person. For the
first time he employs no harmless German fellow-countryman. It is a
title to fame for Switzerland, as it is for our own Germans in
Switzerland, that no one let himself be hired to do this deed so that
for the first time the spiritual begetter of the act must himself
perform the act. So our comrade has fallen a victim to that power
which wages a fanatical warfare not only against our German people but
against every free, autonomous, and independent people. We understand
the challenge to battle and we take up the gage! My dear comrade! You
have not fallen in vain!

>In other words, encouraged to get back into the kitchen.

Cooking is not the main point, it's children.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:18:17 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2013 23:12:13 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation.
>>
>>It's the way they kept invading people...
>>
>>It Pisses reasonable people right off...
>
>
>By Mark Weber
>
>Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
>and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
>Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
>December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
>violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
>war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
>declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
>vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
>intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
>provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
>against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
>well known.

And approved of by all reasonable people.

[Bill]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 04:41:53 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 7 May 2013 00:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>And as workers around the world have found, these principles are a
>>contradiction in terms - and that, in fact, under fascism, it is free
>>enterprise and the interests of the rich that trumps any concern for
>>"our nation's people" (and of course, woe betide any workers *not*
>>considered "our nation's people").
>
>
> Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle,

Now he really was a nasty bastard, and totally unapologetic.

A traitor, a murderer and a crook.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:km6og7$efm$1...@dont-email.me...

> Two facets I've noticed concerning "leftwingers" and "rightwingers" alike.
>
> One is a higher trust placed in politicians and the state than in the
> citizen
>

I noticed this decades ago.

I have only heard two politicians promoting an enablement act (which would
allow the UK government to rule by decree). Sir Oswald Moseley and Tony
Benn (aka. The Rt. Hon. Anthony Wedgwood-Benn lately Viscount Stansgate)

[Bret Cahill]

> > > > > > You only have 2 directions:
>
> > > > > > Democratic freedom or despotism.
>
> > > > > > Every other distinction is useless.
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > So speaks a fanatic for democracy,
>
> > > > Extremeism in defense of freedom is no vice.
>
> > > > -- Goldwater
>
> > > He wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
>
> > Even idiots know extremism in defense of freedom is no vice.
>
> What's freedom?

Being in a society where you can come up with ideas.

> > > > > presumably some kind of American
> > > > > imperialist wanting to spread revolution around the world.
>
> > > > The internet will do that free of charge.
>
> > > > > Sometimes
> > > > > democracy means freedom,
>
> > > > Whereas no meaningful elections always means despotism.
>
> > > Eighteenth century England was not a democracy.
>
> > And Jefferson called George III a despot in the DoI.
>
> > Any other earth shaking observations?
>
> As an American imperialist you are soaked in that corny that
> revolutionary rhetoric.

Standards have fallen. Most Americans today don't have a clue about
what the American Revolution or the DoI was all about, i.e., Jefferson
organizing a collective to take land from the richest man on earth and
then turning over power to tax and spend to the majority.

If you google "Das KapitalOne" you'll get a lot of hits for posts by
idiots duped into thinking the Federalist # 10 was written by Marx.

> British people know it is absurd to think of
> Farmer George thus,

French and American ideas on equality originated in England. Thomas
Paine, the greatest American, was born in England.

> > . . .
>
> > > > After 2 centuries of riots the Mideast will become somewhat
> > > > democratic.
>
> > > Your faith. Perhaps the whole world will become .some tyrannical
> > > empire.
>
> > Impossible with cheap communications.
>
> Fatuous American optimism.

You need to try communicating the right things to the right people.

As Tocqueville pointed out, you can never really be completely
enslaved as long as you have freedom of speech.

For example, the Koch Bros can be treated as a unit and are
effectively the richest man on earth today and they are so desperate
they are thinking of buying the economic populist LA Times.

Their problem isn't the legacy media who are already giving the rich
the best possible deal. Their problem is the internet. A couple
years ago Obama frightened the Koch Bros so bad they said he was "just
like Saddam."

Now what in the world could provoke such a reaction besides free
speech?


Bret Cahill

[saracene]

Freedom was English, equality French. And equality is crap. De
Tocqueville explains why.

[Ste]

On May 7, 10:41 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 00:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >And as workers around the world have found, these principles are a
> >contradiction in terms - and that, in fact, under fascism, it is free
> >enterprise and the interests of the rich that trumps any concern for
> >"our nation's people" (and of course, woe betide any workers *not*
> >considered "our nation's people").
>
>  Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former
>  leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS:
>
>   "One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers
>  was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French
>  Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the
>  concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per
>  year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as
>  generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.
>

> [...]

At great length, you do well in explaining why Hitler had a
significant amount of popular support. But we in Europe now have, or
at least had at some point in the postwar period, all the things you
claim Hitler to have pioneered. And fortunately, we've had it without
war, gas chambers, or eugenics. I've no doubt that in the 1930s,
whilst many British workers struggled to eat let alone find work, the
Germans must have thought themselves lucky to have Hitler.

It's true that fascism isn't all bad all of the time. Capitalism isn't
all bad all of the time. The point is where it logically ends up for
people, if allowed to run its course. There were massive reserves of
wealth, and massive potential in the forces of production, all through
the 1930s. Hitler could afford paid vacation, just as Britain could
afford a welfare state and an NHS, even *after* spending a war chest
to raze a significant portion of Europe's factories and infrastructure
to the ground. But like the sell-off of council housing in the 80s,
Hitler's long-term plan wasn't to help the working class or take
wealth away from businessmen - it was a short-term bribe, to get the
German peope to support Hitler's entire package that would ultimately
be ruinous for all the people of Europe.

There's no doubt Hitler and his supporters differed from the free
market businessmen - the international rich, in particular, were
outraged at the idea that their personal business interests should be
subordinated to the needs of the host nation state. But just because
it was not liberal, free market capitalism, does not mean Nazism did
not intend to ultimately favour the rich minority. There are many
conceivably alternative economic models designed to enrich a small
minority of people at the expense of the majority.

> >In other words, encouraged to get back into the kitchen.
>
> Cooking is not the main point, it's children.
>
> More American Women Not Having Children

> Reutershttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100625/lf_nm_life/us_children_report

>
> More American women are choosing not to have children than three
> decades ago, according to a new report. Nearly 20 percent of older
> women do not have children, compared to 10 percent in the 1970s, the
> Pew Research Center said. .. .. Education also is a factor in a
> woman's choice to be a mother. The more educated women are, the higher
> the childless rate is.
>
> "The net effect of feminism is to make any population that practices
> it, dumber. The overall IQ of any population practicing feminism, will
> over time become lower. Why is that? Because the women with high IQ's
> of any such society will be drawn into the feminist web, and they will
> fail to reproduce at even a replacement rate.

The main problem for women is not feminism, but markets. A few decades
ago they could have fought for the right for child-rearing to be
recognised as socially valuable (which I think is your position too)
and therefore remunerated directly by society, but it went the other
way towards the right to participate in the markets - and
simultaneously, organised labour has been smashed and the welfare
state attacked, leaving women (except the very wealthiest, of course)
worse off than ever.

> What is it about feminism that seeks out and destroys intelligence?
> Here are a few factors:
>
> One of the primary goals of feminism is to promote the freeing of
> women from the "mundane" task of raising children. Feminism has set as
> one of its goals: zero children for women; a goal which is of course
> suicidal, but that does not slow them down.
>
> Should a woman, who practices the religion of feminism, become
> pregnant, she will be encouraged by her fellow feminists to have an
> abortion, and terminate the child's life within her.
>
> Women who are feminists, are driven to have careers. So, even if they
> want to have children, they view that as something to be done later,
> and to be done quickly. In other words, they will have only one, or at
> the most two children, if they get around to it at all. If they fail
> to have this attitude, they fear that the childbearing process will
> destroy their careers.

Frankly, not all women want to have careers, and for those who do it
should be a matter of choice. Most women are forced into labour
markets not because of a great desire for a career, but because they
don't want to live in penury and bring up any children they have in
slums.

[JNugent]

On 06/05/2013 21:57, Ste wrote:

> There is nothing ideological about insisting that the rich have too
> much of the pie, and that they are using their wealth and power over
> time to increase their grab of the pie at the same time as assaulting
> democracy and liberal values (and the conditions on which they depend).

Do you actually understand what the word "ideological" means?

[Special Care]

Melanie Phillips - the UNTESTED POISON

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Remember Sunday School, and the parable of The Talents as told by
Apollonius-Jesus.


That illustrates Melanie Phillips’ crime against herself and her
crime
against humanity.


Melanie Phillips has wasted her talents.


Melanie Phillips is a TRAITOR to the human race.


Melanie Phillips didn’t just bury her talents in the ground. No. Much
worse than that. She is using her God-given talents TO PREVENT
HEALING, TO PREVENT PROGRESS.


She is squandering her God-given talents on playing her glory game,
conducting a futile and counterproductive FAKE DEBATE about ‘left
wing’ versus ‘right wing,’ and certain other FAKE DEBATES guaranteed
to keep everything the same as it is for all eternity, which is
exactly why the ruling group devised and imposed on us that FAKE
DEBATE about ‘left wing’ versus ‘right wing,’ along with the fake
debate on ‘animal rights. Climate change is more complex, but Lady
Melanie is quite doctrinaire and rigid on climate change in her own
way.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE


Melanie Phillips promotes the FAKE DEBATE on The Vivisection Swindle.
In reality, vivisection is the collective slow-motion suicide of
humanity and slow-motion mass murder of human babies via ‘animal
tested’ (=UNTESTED) poisons, which clearly has Melanie Phillips’
backing.


By wasting her talents on her glory game and on those fake debates,
Melanie Phillips is A TRAITOR TO HUMANITY.


Her so-called ‘glory’ is guaranteed, because our civilisation is
INVERTED. So in a sense, she’ll always win, always be the big fish in
the small pond of FAKE DEBATES WHICH PREVENT HUMAN PROGRESS.


Still, she’s chosen to place herself on the public stage, so she
can’t
complain if someone steps out from the crowd and speaks the truth
about her in a public place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sometimes you just have to react, for example when you see a woman so
filled with hauteur and self praise, placing herself up on her
haughty
high perch, praising herself by saying something about herself which
is the OPPOSITE of the TRUTH about herself.
It was jaw-dropping. You can imagine the expression on my face when I
read Melanie Phillips’ statement in the Daily Mail, London, Saturday
4
May 2013, page 16.
She had the gall to type the following sentence into a public place:


==============================================
“I ALWAYS BELIEVED A GOOD JOURNALIST SHOULD UPHOLD TRUTH OVER LIES
AND
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE WHERE IT LED.”
==============================================


But the direct opposite is true about Melanie Phillips.


The record shows that Melanie Phillips upholds LIES over truth and
REFUSES to follow the evidence where it leads.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why did she not have the guts to telephone me *herself* back then -
when I pointed out her colossal blunder regarding The Vivisection
Swindle?


Why did she instead get that Injun man to phone me in a half-
threatening manner, implying that he had connections with the boys up
at Menwith Hill and knew everything that had been said in my incoming
and outgoing phone calls?


===============================================


THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE revisited:


===============================================


IF YOU ARE GIFTED WITH A STRONG INTELLECT, AND YET YOU FAIL TO
CONFRONT THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE AND TO CONDEMN IT IN A PUBLIC PLACE
(minus the fake debate on ‘animal rights’), THEN YOU HAVE FAILED IN
LIFE.


===============================================


THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE CONTAMINATES US ALL AND REDUCES US ALL TO
MORAL IDIOTS AND INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTS, UNLESS WE FIGHT BACK AGAINST
THESE MENTALLY ILL, CRIMINALLY INSANE VIVISECTORS WHO ARE WRECKING
OUR
HEALTH AND COMMITTING MASS MURDER OF HUMAN BABIES WITH THEIR
AVALANCHE
OF ‘ANIMAL TESTED’ (=UNTESTED) POISONS.


===============================================


That vivisection is not science but is madness was obvious from the
start of its latest phase, as the vivisectionist cancer started to
expand again in the nineteenth century. The most tragic early example
of the bankruptcy of vivisection was the delay in introducing useful
anesthetics. The early anesthetics such as choroform and nitrous
oxide
affect animals quite differently to humans. And so in the nineteenth
century human beings suffered terrible agonies under surgery, and
needlessly so. Why? Because the FAKE ‘animal tests’ DELAYED the
introduction of those useful early anesthetics.


The warning signal was ignored. The cancer of vivisection kept
expanding. The infant mortality rate soared throughout the twentieth
century as vaccines and other poisons were ingested by mothers and
babies.


Now, we are approaching the total annihilation of the biosphere and
the depopulation of the earth as a result of the avalanche of ‘animal
tested’ (=UNTESTED) poisons.


The Vivisection Swindle shows the limitations of humanity - including
the fact that almost the entire human population - almost all seven
billion - can very easily be trained to believe the opposite of the
truth.


===============================================


If you let yourself think - an extremely difficult thing for humans
to
do - you will see two obvious contradictions in The Vivisection
Swindle.


1. If you say humanity is a ‘superior’ species and therefore is
entitled to torture all other species without limit to ‘better’
ourselves, you are missing the obvious point: AN EVOLVED AND MORALLY
SUPERIOR SPECIES WOULD NEVER VIVISECT. By sanctioning the unlimited
torture of all non-humans, you are not bettering yourselves at all,
you are degrading and debasing yourselves beyond measure, revealing
humanity to be the INFERIOR species on this planet, the scum of the
universe. As Hans Ruesch said: “a species which would seek to save
itself by such means is not worth saving.”
2. All seven billion human beings are well aware that our water,
air,
soil, food chain, tissues, blood, bones and brains are filling up
with
POISONS more and more with each passing day. If you can find a human
being anywhere on earth who does not know that we are being
systematically poisoned more and more with each passing day - I would
be interested to meet such a person. Strangely, we are being told
that
all these poisons were ‘safety tested’ on animals. Well if we’re all
being filled up with poisons more and more each day … ehhhhhh… where
do the safety tests come in? SAFETY-TESTED POISONS …..Explain that,
Melanie.


===============================================


The Vivisection Swindle is not an ‘animal rights’ issue. The concept
of ‘animal rights’ is meaningless, when the animals themselves give
no
‘animal rights’ to other animals, but eat one another. We should try
to be decent toward animals, unless they’re invading our living
space,
but ‘animal rights’ is the FAKE DEBATE promoted by the ruling group
to
conceal the terrible truth about the scientific fraud that is
vivisection. More accurately, there is NO debate on vivisection.
There
is only the REALITY and the TRUTH that The Vivisection Swindle is the
collective slow-motion mass suicide of humanity, the slow-motion
destruction of the biosphere, and the mass murder of our children and
our grandchildren via the avalanche of ‘animal tested’ (=UNTESTED)
poisons.


This concerns Melanie Phillips because she quoted that mentally ill
man at Oxford University who said that penicillin was discovered via
animal experiments, and Melanie, the ‘good journalist,’ never gave a
thought to finding out whether her source was telling the truth or
lying.


There is just a small number of useful medicines. They were not
discovered through vivisection, because ‘animal tests’ offer ZERO
predictive value for the effect a substance will have on humans.


Think again of the agonies suffered by humans under surgery in the
nineteenth century because fake ‘animal tests’ delayed the use of the
early anesthetics. The few useful medicines were discovered by
accident and by being tested on human beings.


===============================================
HUMAN WOMEN HAVE NO MATERNAL INSTINCT:
The complete absence of any parenting impulse in all seven billion
human beings is the most worrying aspect of the vivisection swindle.
Human women have no maternal instinct, no impulse to protect their
babies from sickness and death via ‘animal tested’ (=UNTESTED)
poisons. That is scary.
===============================================
No use in saying you are opposed to vivisection. You most certainly
are NOT opposed to vivisection. There is no human being anywhere on
earth who is opposed to vivisection. The so-called ‘antivivisection
movement’ - with or without infiltrators - has at all times been only
a wrestling show, intended to fail, dedicated to a state of no
change.
Even Hans Ruesch remained silent about the Citizens’ Arrest
Initiative
in 1990. There is a *collective death wish* afflicting all seven
billion human beings, and it is expressed prominently in the fact
that
the so-called ‘antivivisection’ movement has always been only a
wrestling show, intended to fail.
===============================================


WHY DO I DESPISE MELANIE PHILLIPS SO MUCH?


Why ‘pick on’ her?


Is it because she is stupid?


No, it is the opposite. I despise her because she is so intelligent
and so talented and has such a brilliant intellect……… and then she
refuses to make use of her God-given talents to contribute to
healing,
refuses to strive to make the world a better place……


On that basis, Melanie Phillips’ column in the Daily Mail is an
obscenity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEXY LADY


There is something very sexy about a woman with a powerful intellect,
a woman who is an expert logician, a woman who writes flawlessly and
articulately in the English language.


Not that I want to marry her. I’m an old man and I’ve lived my life.
But there is something very sexy about a woman who writes as she
does.


So again, what is my objection to Melanie Phillips?


Simply the following:


IT IS TALENTED AND ARTICULATE PEOPLE SUCH AS MELANIE PHILLIPS WHO ARE
BLOCKING ALL POSSIBILITY OF PROGRESS FOR THE HUMAN RACE, BLOCKING ALL
POSSIBILITY OF HEALING OUR TRAGIC CIVILISATION, BY WASTING THEIR
TALENTS ON FAKE AND FUTILE DEBATES ABOUT NOTHING OF ANY IMPORTANCE,
AND THUS LEADING THE MANY ASTRAY.


“Always the non-essential, never the essential,” as Wilhelm Reich
lamented.


And this has also been said:
S/HE WHO IS CLOSEST TO THE TRUTH IS THE WORST LIAR OF ALL, BECAUSE S/
HE WILL LEAD THE MANY ASTRAY.
Ruling groups are well aware of that principle and have been using it
for ages. And Melanie has fallen for it. She doesn’t seem to know how
much damage she is causing by compartmentalising herself within those
fake debates.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


When I pointed out her colossal blunder regarding The Vivisection
Swindle, that was a fork in the road for Lady Melanie.


She took the wrong turning.


She had my phone number. She could have talked it through with me and
issued a correction and an apology for promoting THE IMMINENT
DESTRUCTION OF THE BIOSPHERE AND THE MASS MURDER OF HUMAN BABIES VIA
‘ANIMAL TESTED’ (=UNTESTED) POISONS. Instead she got that Injun to
make an intimidating phone call to me to try to shut me up. And this
is the woman who wrote last Saturday: “I always believed that a good
journalist should uphold truth over lies…”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


IT GETS WORSE ! / Daily Mail, London, 8 May 2013, page 28:


On Climate change and the Green movement, Melanie sure knows how to
make herself look foolish.


“I cared about curbing pollution…” she writes.


No, Melanie, you most certainly do NOT care about curbing pollution.
The fake ‘animal tests’ (=NON-TESTS) are the root CAUSE of pollution,
and you support ‘animal tests’ (=NON-TESTS), and therefore, Melanie,
you support pollution and thereby you support the MASS MURDER OF
HUMAN
BABIES VIA ‘ANIMAL TESTED’ (=UNTESTED) poisons.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


AND WORSE STILL:


Then we have this:
“as for man-made global warming, it was immediately obvious….. that
there was simply no evidence that anything out of the historical
ordinary was happening to the climate at all…”


“Historical” is not defined. Do you mean all of human history or
perhaps the past hundred years? Anyone who lived through the 1940s to
1960s knows the climate has changed beyond recognition since then.


Have you been in a coma all your life until today, Melanie?


When I was a boy there were four seasons, clearly definable and as
predictable as clockwork, with daffodils appearing, birds migrating,
leaves falling etc. at the same time each year.
As to be expected, there was the occasional severe winter, as in 1947
and 1963.
However, since the late 1980s, the concept of four seasons doesn’t
mean much any more. Almost anything can happen with the weather now.
What was extreme within living memory is now the norm, for example
snow falling on the canals of Venice.
Furthermore, famines, flooding, droughts - and hence forest fires -
have been much more prevalent and much more destructive since the
late
1980s.


As for warming or cooling, how does a ‘scientist’ determine that?
Tell
me. I’d like to know. If it is something such as taking repeated
readings of the temperature at different points on the earth’s
surface
and averaging them out - well that wouldn’t tell us anything of
importance…. Like ‘animal tests,’ that will tell you whatever you
want
it to tell you.


[Note: it is important to understand that increased incidence of
flooding together with increased incidence of drought can be all part
of the same scenario. Also, increased production of icebergs can be
consistent with either expansion or diminution of the polar ice caps.
But if you’re a ‘scientist,’ you probably can’t see that.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


AND EVEN WORSE:


Next Melanie says, in ridiculing mode, signalling her disagreement
with the following words:
“The clear message of environmentalism was that the planet would be
fine if it wasn’t for the human race.”


Well, if the human race didn’t exist, there would be no avalanche of
‘animal tested’ (=UNTESTED) poisons MURDERING OUR BABIES and about to
destroy the biosphere, Melanie…..


So for that reason alone, it would be really wonderful for this
planet
if humanity did not exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


AND EVEN WORSE STILL:


Next Melanie says:
“….with any…issue I write about, I constantly tested for consistency,
logic reasonableness and supporting evidence.”


Well done, Melanie! You’re a real comedian! So, you support so-called
‘animal tests’ while all seven billion human beings agree that our
water, air, soil, food chain, tissues, blood, bones, brains are being
poisoned more and more with each passing day, and all these poisons
have been ‘safety tested.’
SAFETY-TESTED POISONS.
Where is your “consistency, logic, reasonableness and supporting
evidence” in your backing for SAFETY-TESTED POISONS, Melanie?


You’re only a joke.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


In future just stay in bed, Melanie.


Because you, Melanie Phillips, are the greatest UNTESTED POISON of
the
lot.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Note: I believe Lady Melanie long ago blocked my email address from
reaching her email address. That speaks volumes about her state of
embarrassment regarding her hypocrisy about The Vivisection Swindle.
I’ll forward this message to her colleagues at the Daily Mail and the
Guardian and hope they will inform her of it. It will be nice if Lady
Melanie - THE WOMAN WHO BELIEVES “A JOURNALIST SHOULD UPHOLD TRUTH
OVER LIES AND FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE WHERE IT LEADS” - will then issue a
public apology for what she said in support of The Vivisection
Swindle, in support of THE MASS MURDER OF HUMAN BABIES VIA ‘ANIMAL
TESTED’ (=UNTESTED) POISONS, without bothering to check whether the
scatterbrained ‘professor’ at Oxford University was telling the truth
or lying.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I choose not to have an accessible telephone number now. So you can’t
get the Injun to make another intimidating phone call to me, Melanie.
Just get my address from the boys up at Menwith Hill and come and
talk
to me in person next time you’re up north (send a paper letter
first),
and we’ll straighten this whole thing out.


I’ll make a Lady out o’ ye yet, Melanie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE VIVISECTION SWINDLE /
= THE COLLECTIVE SUICIDE OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES:


Animal Experimentation: the Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_174g5kg85dn


The Only Sane Response to the Vivisection Swindle (1990):
http://www.nzavs.org.nz/mobilise/27/12.html


IMPERATRICE NUDA lives!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7smankjw-O3FRnpGiCjFYYnKl2Kpz1rZ...


Vivisection or Science - Pietro Croce
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/croce1.html


High Water Mark / High Tide Mark / Hans Ruesch in Los Angeles, 1984:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh3YYgBzb-I&feature=related

[JNugent]

On 08/05/2013 17:40, Special Care wrote:

> Melanie Phillips - the UNTESTED POISON
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Remember Sunday School, and the parable of The Talents as told by
> Apollonius-Jesus.
>

> That illustrates Melanie Phillips� crime against herself and her

> crime against humanity.
>
> Melanie Phillips has wasted her talents.
>
> Melanie Phillips is a TRAITOR to the human race.

[snip enough for another eighteen pages of A4, all in the same vein.]

She wrote about you last week.

[Topaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Topaz]

The Enigma of Hitler

by Leon Degrelle

The mountains of Hitler books based on blind hatred and ignorance do
little to describe or explain the most powerful man the world has ever
seen. How, I ponder, do these thousands of disparate portraits of
Hitler in any way resemble the man I knew? The Hitler seated beside
me, standing up, talking, listening. It has become impossible to
explain to people fed fantastic tales for decades that what they have
read or heard on television just does not correspond to the truth.

People have come to accept fiction, repeated a thousand times over, as
reality. Yet they have never seen Hitler, never spoken to him, never
heard a word from his mouth. The very name of Hitler immediately
conjures up a grimacing devil, the fount of all of one's negative
emotions. Like Pavlov's bell, the mention of Hitler is meant to
dispense with substance and reality. In time, however, history will
demand more than these summary judgments.

Hitler is always present before my eyes: as a man of peace in 1936, as
a man of war in 1944. It is not possible to have been a personal
witness to the life of such an extraordinary man without being marked
by it forever. Not a day goes by but Hitler rises again in my memory,
not as a man long dead, but as a real being who paces his office
floor, seats himself in his chair, pokes the burning logs in the
fireplace.

The first thing anyone noticed when he came into view was his small
mustache. Countless times he had been advised to shave it off, but he
always refused: people were used to him the way he was.
He was not tall -- no more than was Napoleon or Alexander the Great.
Hitler had deep blue eyes that many found bewitching, although I did
not find them so. Nor did I detect the electric current his hands were
said to give off. I gripped them quite a few times and was never
struck by his lightening.

His face showed emotion or indifference according to the passion or
apathy of the moment. At times he was as though benumbed, saying not a
word, while his jaws moved in the meanwhile as if they were grinding
an obstacle to smithereens in the void. Then he would come suddenly
alive and launch into a speech directed at you alone, as though he
were addressing a crowd of hundreds of thousands at Berlin's Tempelhof
airfield. Then he became as if transfigured. Even his complexion,
otherwise dull, lit up as he spoke. And at such times, to be sure,
Hitler was strangely attractive and as if possessed of magic powers.
Anything that might have seemed too solemn in his remarks, he quickly
tempered with a touch of humour. The picturesque world, the biting
phrase were at his command. In a flash he would paint a word-picture
that brought a smile, or come up with an unexpected and disarming
comparison. He could be harsh and even implacable in his judgments and
yet almost at the same time be surprisingly conciliatory, sensitive
and warm.

After 1945 Hitler was accused of every cruelty, but it was not in his
nature to be cruel. He loved children. It was an entirely natural
thing for him to stop his car and share his food with young cyclists
along the road. Once he gave his raincoat to a derelict plodding in
the rain. At midnight he would interrupt his work and prepare the food
for his dog Blondi.

He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living
creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed
to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because
egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed.
Hitler's eating habits were a constant source of amazement to me. How
could someone on such a rigorous schedule, who had taken part in tens
of thousands of exhausting mass meetings from which he emerged bathed
with sweat, often losing two to four pounds in the process; who slept
only three to four hours a night; and who, from 1940 to 1945, carried
the whole world on his shoulders while ruling over 380 million
Europeans: how, I wondered, could he physically survive on just a
boiled egg, a few tomatoes, two or three pancakes, and a plate of
noodles? But he actually gained weight!

He drank only water. He did not smoke and would not tolerate smoking
in his presence. At one or two o'clock in the morning he would still
be talking, untroubled, close to his fireplace, lively, often amusing.
He never showed any sign of weariness. Dead tired his audience might
be, but not Hitler.

He was depicted as a tired old man. Nothing was further from the
truth. In September 1944, when he was reported to be fairly doddering,
I spent a week with him. His mental and physical vigor were still
exceptional. The attempt made on his life on July 20th had, if
anything, recharged him. He took tea in his quarters as tranquilly as
if we had been in his small private apartment at the chancellery
before the war, or enjoying the view of snow and bright blue sky
through his great bay window at Berchtesgaden.

At the very end of his life, to be sure, his back had become bent, but
his mind remained as clear as a flash of lightening. The testament he
dictated with extraordinary composure on the eve of his death, at
three in the morning of April 29, 1945, provides us a lasting
testimony. Napoleon at Fontainebleau was not without his moments of
panic before his abdication. Hitler simply shook hands with his
associates in silence, breakfasted as on any other day, then went to
his death as if he were going on a stroll. When has history ever
witnessed so enormous a tragedy brought to its end with such iron self
control?

Hitler's most notable characteristic was ever his simplicity. The most
complex of problems resolved itself in his mind into a few basic
principles. His actions were geared to ideas and decisions that could
be understood by anyone. The laborer from Essen, the isolated farmer,
the Ruhr industrialist, and the university professor could all easily
follow his line of thought. The very clarity of his reasoning made
everything obvious.

His behaviour and his life style never changed even when he became the
ruler of Germany. He dressed and lived frugally. During his early days
in Munich, he spent no more than a mark per day for food. At no stage
in his life did he spend anything on himself. Throughout his 13 years
in the chancellery he never carried a wallet or ever had money of his
own.

Hitler was self-taught and made no attempt to hide the fact. The smug
conceit of intellectuals, their shiny ideas packaged like so many
flashlight batteries, irritated him at times. His own knowledge he had
acquired through selective and unremitting study, and he knew far more
than thousands of diploma-decorated academics.

I don't think anyone ever read as much as he did. He normally read one
book every day, always first reading the conclusion and the index in
order to gauge the work's interest for him. He had the power to
extract the essence of each book and then store it in his
computer-like mind. I have heard him talk about complicated scientific
books with faultless precision, even at the height of the war.
His intellectual curiosity was limitless. He was readily familiar with
the writings of the most diverse authors, and nothing was too complex
for his comprehension. He had a deep knowledge and understanding of
Buddha, Confucius and Jesus Christ, as well as Luther, Calvin, and
Savonarola; of literary giants such as Dante, Schiller, Shakespeare
and Goethe; and analytical writers such as Renan and Gobineau,
Chamberlain and Sorel.

He had trained himself in philosophy by studying Aristotle and Plato.
He could quote entire paragraphs of Schopenhauer from memory, and for
a long time carried a pocked edition of Schopenhauer with him.
Nietzsche taught him much about the willpower.

His thirst for knowledge was unquenchable. He spend hundreds of hours
studying the works of Tacitus and Mommsen, military strategists such
as Clausewitz, and empire builders such as Bismark. Nothing escaped
him: world history or the history of civilizations, the study of the
Bible and the Talmud, Thomistic philosophy and all the masterpieces of
Homer, Sophocles, Horace, Ovid, Titus Livius and Cicero. He knew
Julian the Apostate as if he had been his contemporary.

His knowledge also extended to mechanics. He knew how engines worked;
he understood the ballistics of various weapons; and he astonished the
best medical scientists with his knowledge of medicine and biology.
The universality of Hitler's knowledge may surprise or displease those
unaware of it, but it is nonetheless a historical fact: Hitler was one
of the most cultivated men of this century. Many times more so than
Churchill, an intellectual mediocrity; or than Pierre Lavaal, with him
mere cursory knowledge of history; of than Roosevelt; or Eisenhower,
who never got beyond detective novels.

Even during his earliest years, Hitler was different than other
children. He had an inner strength and was guided by his spirit and
his instincts.

He could draw skillfully when he was only eleven years old. His
sketches made at that age show a remarkable firmness and liveliness.
He first paintings and watercolors, created at age 15, are full of
poetry and sensitivity. One of his most striking early works,
'Fortress Utopia,' also shows him to have been an artist of rare
imagination. His artistic orientation took many forms. He wrote poetry
from the time he was a lad. He dictated a complete play to his sister
Paula who was amazed at his presumption. At the age of 16, in Vienna,
he launched into the creation of an opera. He even designed the stage
settings, as well as all the costumes; and, of course, the characters
were Wagnerian heroes.

More than just an artist, Hitler was above all an architect. Hundreds
of his works were notable as much for the architecture as for the
painting. From memory alone he could reproduce in every detail the
onion dome of a church or the intricate curves of wrought iron.
Indeed, it was to fulfill his dream of becoming an architect that
Hitler went to Vienna at the beginning of the century.

When one sees the hundreds of paintings, sketches and drawings he
created at the time, which reveal his mastery of three dimensional
figures, it is astounding that his examiners at the Fine Arts Academy
failed him in two successive examinations. German historian Werner
Maser, no friend of Hitler, castigated these examiners: "All of his
works revealed extraordinary architectural gifts and knowledge. The
builder of the Third Reich gives the former Fine Arts Academy of
Vienna cause for shame."

In his room, Hitler always displayed an old photograph of his mother.
The memory of the mother he loved was with him until the day he died.
Before leaving this earth, on April 30, 1945, he placed his mother's
photograph in front of him. She had blue eyes like his and a similar
face. Her maternal intuition told her that her son was different from
other children. She acted almost as if she knew her son's destiny.
When she died, she felt anguished by the immense mystery surrounding
her son.

Throughout the years of his youth, Hitler lived the life of a virtual
recluse. He greatest wish was to withdraw from the world. At heart a
loner, he wandered about, ate meager meals, but devoured the books of
three public libraries. He abstained from conversations and had few
friends.

It is almost impossible to imagine another such destiny where a man
started with so little and reached such heights. Alexander the great
was the son of a king. Napoleon, from a well-to-do family, was a
general at 24. Fifteen years after Vienna, Hitler would still be an
unknown corporal. Thousands of others had a thousand times more
opportunity to leave their mark on the world.

Hitler was not much concerned with his private life. In Vienna he had
lived in shabby, cramped lodgings. But for all that he rented a piano
that took up half his room, and concentrated on composing his opera.
He lived on bread, milk, and vegetable soup. His poverty was real. He
did not even own an over-coat. He shoveled streets on snowy days. He
carried luggage at the railway station. He spent many weeks in
shelters for the homeless. But he never stopped painting or reading.
Despite his dire poverty, Hitler somehow managed to maintain a clean
appearance. Landlords and landladies in Vienna and Munich all
remembered him for his civility and pleasant disposition. His
behaviour was impeccable. His room was always spotless, his meager
belongings meticulously arranged, and his clothes neatly hung or
folded. He washed and ironed his own clothes, something which in those
days few men did. He needed almost nothing to survive, and money from
the sale of a few paintings was sufficient to provide for all his
needs.

Impressed by the beauty of the church in a Benedictine monastery where
he was part of the choir and served as an altar boy, Hitler dreamt
fleetingly of becoming a Benedictine monk. And it was at that time,
too, interestingly enough, that whenever he attended mass, he always
had to pass beneath the first swastika he had ever seen: it was graven
in the stone escutcheon of the abbey portal.

Hitler's father, a customs officer, hoped the boy would follow in his
footsteps and become a civil servant. His tutor encouraged him to
become a monk. Instead the young Hitler went, or rather fled, to
Vienna. And there, thwarted in his artistic aspirations by the
bureaucratic mediocrities of academia, he turned to isolation and
meditation. Lost in the great capital of Austria-Hungary, he searched
for his destiny.

During the first 30 years of Hitler's life, the date April 20, 1889,
meant nothing to anyone. He was born on that day in Braunau, a small
town in the Inn valley. During his exile in Vienna, he often thought
of his modest home, and particularly of his mother. When she fell ill,
he returned home from Vienna to look after her. For weeks he nursed
her, did all the household chores, and supported her as the most
loving of sons. When she finally died, on Christmas eve, his pain was
immense. Wracked with grief, he buried his mother in the little
country cemetery. "I have never seen anyone so prostrate with grief,"
said his mother's doctor, who happened to be Jewish.

Hitler had not yet focused on politics, but without his rightly
knowing, that was the career to which he was most strongly called.
Politics would ultimately blend with his passion for art. People, the
masses, would be the clay the sculptor shapes into an immortal form.
The human clay would become for him a beautiful work of art like one
of Myron's marble sculptures, a Hans Makart painting, or Wagner's Ring
Trilogy.

His love of music, art and architecture had not removed him from the
political life and social concerns of Vienna. In order to survive, he
worked as a common laborer sided by side with other workers. He was a
silent spectator, but nothing escaped him: not the vanity and egoism
of the bourgeoisie, not the moral and material misery of the people,
nor yet the hundreds of thousands of workers who surged down the wide
avenues of Vienna with anger in their hearts.

He had also been taken aback by the growing presence in Vienna of
bearded Jews wearing caftans, a sight unknown in Linz. "How can they
be Germans?" he asked himself. He read the statistics: in 1860 there
were 69 Jewish families in Vienna; 40 years later there were 200,000.
They were everywhere. He observed their invasion of the universities
and the legal and medical professions, and their takeover of the
newspapers.

Hitler was exposed to the passionate reactions of the workers to this
influx, but the workers were not alone in their unhappiness. There
were many prominent persons in Austria and Hungary who did not hide
their resentment at what they believed was an alien invasion of their
country. The mayor of Vienna, a Christian-Democrat and a powerful
orator, was eagerly listened to by Hitler.

Hitler was also concerned with the fate of the eight million Austrian
Germans kept apart from Germany, and thus deprived of their rightful
German nationhood. He saw Emperor Franz Josef as a bitter and petty
old man unable to cope with the problems of the day and the
aspirations of the future.

Quietly, the young Hitler was summing things up in his mind.
First: Austrians were part of Germany, the common fatherland.
Second: The Jews were aliens within the German community.
Third: Patriotism was only valid if it was shared by all classes. The
common people with whom Hitler had shared grief and humiliation were
just as much a part of the fatherland as the millionaires of high
society.

Fourth: Class war would sooner or later condemn both workers and
bosses to ruin in any country. No country could survive class war;
only cooperation between workers and bosses can benefit the country.
Workers must be respected and live with decency and honor. Creativity
must never be stifled.

When Hitler later said that he had formed his social and political
doctrine in Vienna, he told the truth. Ten years later his
observations made in Vienna would become the order of the day.
Thus Hitler was to live for several years in the crowded city of
Vienna as a virtual outcast, yet quietly observing everything around
him. His strength came from within. He did not rely on anyone to do
his thinking for him. Exceptional human beings always feel lonely amid
the vast human throng. Hitler saw his solitude as a wonderful
opportunity to meditate and not to be submerged in a mindless sea. In
order not to be lost in the wastes of a sterile desert, a strong soul
seeks refuge within himself. Hitler was such a soul.

The lightning in Hitler's life would come from the word.
All his artistic talent would be channeled into his mastery of
communication and eloquence. Hitler would never conceive of popular
conquests without the power of the word. He would enchant and be
enchanted by it. He would find total fulfillment when the magic of his
words inspired the hearts and minds of the masses with whom he
communed.

He would feel reborn each time he conveyed with mystical beauty the
knowledge he had acquired in his lifetime.

Hitler's incantory eloquence will remain, for a very long time, a vast
field of study for the psychoanalyst. The power of Hitler's word is
the key. Without it, there would never have been a Hitler era.

Did Hitler believe in God? He believed deeply in God. He called God
the Almighty, master of all that is known and unknown.

Propagandists portrayed Hitler as an atheist. He was not. He had
contempt for hypocritical and materialistic clerics, but he was not
alone in that. He believed in the necessity of standards and
theological dogmas, without which, he repeatedly said, the great
institution of the Christian church would collapse. These dogmas
clashed with his intelligence, but he also recognized that it was hard
for the human mind to encompass all the problems of creation, its
limitless scope and breathtaking beauty. He acknowledged that every
human being has spiritual needs.

The song of the nightingale, the pattern and color of a flower,
continually brought him back to the great problems of creation. No one
in the world has spoken to me so eloquently about the existence of
God. He held this view not because he was brought up as a Christian,
but because his analytical mind bound him to the concept of God.
Hitler's faith transcended formulas and contingencies. God was for him
the basis of everything, the ordainer of all things, of his Destiny
and that of all others.

[Topaz]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 12:12:20 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>At great length, you do well in explaining why Hitler had a
>significant amount of popular support. But we in Europe now have, or
>at least had at some point in the postwar period, all the things you
>claim Hitler to have pioneered. And fortunately, we've had it without
>war,

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

After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the
British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that
supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that
this war would have to be fought through to the end
The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for
themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A
historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the
Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.
The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion
of the conflict in Norway [in June 1940] compelled the German
leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important
political, strategic and economic areas that had been won.
From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches
the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses.
Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north
that were blasted out of granite.
I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any
enemy attack.
Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at
least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by
eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with
the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was
psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude toward
Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National
Socialist] Party.
I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that
throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military
alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to
invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich
and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that
these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way.
the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the
East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut
their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in
promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial
egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded
it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries
aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of
the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a
feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a
soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and
sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in
the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to
help.
Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that
the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and
thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation
of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a
period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces
bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a
military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being
carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was
being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed
incapable of defense.
What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident,
enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the
Roman empire, its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether
it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on
the Unstrut [river, in 933] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or
others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it
was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly
alien outside world.
Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and
defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up
the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they
may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals,
nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and
complementary whole.
And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other
parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural
fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to
acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England
that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman
branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the
[British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly
unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered
Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not
get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed
race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in
artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood
mixture.
I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became
obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the
German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also
greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When
the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than
just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they
defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples
stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the
West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended
more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa,
they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same
way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire
continent.
And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply
rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they
participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support
or with streams of volunteers.
When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the
Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of
Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our
frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored,
motorized and infantry divisions.
We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow
the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart.
Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was
a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers
now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had
known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they
do not understand either the situation or me.
I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to
avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were
to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become
unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger
not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if
possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the
outbreak of this conflict.
A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which
confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure
about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the
extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank
the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the
strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may
thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.
I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds
of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more
than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion
against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.
If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend
this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over
the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns,
If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a
European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the
concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other
nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have
come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch,
Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of
the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in
the truest sense of the word.
And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a
man [President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the
fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above
all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.
When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing
ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the
unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain
time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering
giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that
in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not
previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up
much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.
You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily
increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland].
You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with
that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far
cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas
during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic
Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There
is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against
this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for
no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live
in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and
Britain] regard their security at stake even in foreign continents. In
geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very
important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting
link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of
the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the
Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups
[notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less
severe.
During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily
hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the
German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to
enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and
we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text.
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the
German-Polish minority question:
The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any
further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have
taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution
must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so
that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only
eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same
tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the
intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of
Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the
minority populations in the lost territories.
In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by
the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the
intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation,
secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which
will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if
not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority
populations with secure guarantees of their rights.
On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete
proposals:
1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on
the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of
its population.
2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for
itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This
territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north]
to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder,
Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then
westwards to Schoenlanke.
3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory.
All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were
born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the
plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived
in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before
that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled
from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.
4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which
is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent
of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is
recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish
port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary,
established by an international court of arbitration.
7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the
territory will go to Germany or to Poland.
9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that
it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the
extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.
13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms
against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its
part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make
protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit
these complaints to an international investigation commission, which
will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and
physical damage as well as other acts of terror.
This is the treaty proposal - as straight-forward and as generous as
has ever been presented by a government - that was made by the
National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.
The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in
any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it
possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard
such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against
the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture,
and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces? A look at
the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later
provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man
[President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all
of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any
possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former
Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his
government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal
the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible
for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man
[Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that,
in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?
With regard to Germany's relationship with America, the following
should be said:
1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a
colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise
politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions
of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and
particularly the United States, has only benefited.
Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between
the American and German nations that could possibly involve the
existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The
forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a
reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of
government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its
naturally ordained sphere.
History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will
always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a
pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of
national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but
among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone
made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were
torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was
ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood
behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into
a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed
this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic
ruin.
After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American
president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up
hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came
to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to
power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine
the factors behind the current developments.
First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that
there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and
attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an
extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that
class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of
advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family,
and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of
immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt
experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow
[as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the
agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some
profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I
lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or
profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an
ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the
face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as
when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with
millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called
upper ten thousand.
After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial
speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is,
from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital
along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in
business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class,
Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same
period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of
my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its
entire history.
Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the
United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party,
which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the
German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I
had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the
same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my
people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that
served the new American president was made up of members of the same
national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical
expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.
And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took
control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result
of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that
was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were
13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven
million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In
both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the
spreading economic depression could not be stopped.
From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German
Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in
making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political
theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement
in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years
under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able
to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task
should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15
people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If
economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the
result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the
complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the
economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was
eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously
increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further
disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.
But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects
appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are
members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in
disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany
took measures against financial speculation, it flourished
tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was
spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by
anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during
peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have
brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical
cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have
ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the
nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by
a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.
Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening
opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think
that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his
domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting
to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington,
which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the
danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and
that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention to foreign
policy.
The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old
Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the
instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim
[slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were
increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their
satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.
The American president increasingly used his influence to create
conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep
conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked
for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he
could use to create political entanglements with American economic
obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily
involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own
confused domestic economic policies.
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been
particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches,
including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in
Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American
public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of
quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of
this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President
Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then
called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for
consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only
by charges d'affaires.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to
sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he
hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same
time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of
peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals,
calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the
Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a
shocking insight.
This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a
message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take
every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in
American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe
Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal
European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the
United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these
problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated
the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself
with central European affairs than the German head of state has to
take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United
States.
Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of
international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like,
would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of
non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments.
He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which
then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories
[Greenland and Iceland ].
But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and
her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is
at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of
deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at
it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms
embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to
Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for
economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to
effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small
group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only
political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had
taken from Warsaw.
This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to
French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American
government would double its aid to France, on the condition that
France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special
emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the
American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by
conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories
that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now
and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about
whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border
in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the
systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about
peace while at the same time he incites to war.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the
billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be
recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack
America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940,
the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in
order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in
reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca
on an American cruiser.
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war,
such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air
force and the training of British air force personnel in the United
States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States
and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a
joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the
stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as
if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly
cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in
order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers,
who really deserve pity. He moved still closer to war in September
1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the
British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British
possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will
determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against
socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the
British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a
role.
After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries
he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941].
As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease
military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in
America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that
Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued
boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa]
that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger
liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had
to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an
effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27,
1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser
Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La
Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of
foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to
international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue
the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they
finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy
hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely
through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle
East.
In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by
the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were
treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in
violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so
forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to
the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian
authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.
On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all
aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his
clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade
after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier,
President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very
inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an
uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade.
In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and
Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants
as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international
law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets. Starting in mid-April [1941]
US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic,
reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt
delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time,
British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May
12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in
the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop
transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9
came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of
President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland
with depth charges.
On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in
violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying
pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls
and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the
shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German
Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn
[national railway] office.
On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from
Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military
operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally
force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize
the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At
the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July
10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was
under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US
destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British
airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later,
a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a
British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last
personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all
Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols
attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On
October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the
British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on
November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in
violation of international law, took it to an American port, and
imprisoned its crew.
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude
statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he
calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did
not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in
America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr.
Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson,
as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].
We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated
against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The
same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to
war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations.
He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while
at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war.
And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that
his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth
and violations of law are unparalleled in history.
I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance
that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this
in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should
not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941].
After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government
finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All
of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people
around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.
We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that
believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we
have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have
gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of
German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international
Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the
President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that
only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.
And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we
were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and
their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another.
The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of
the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been
trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with
Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present
leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this
historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being
determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store
for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the
past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National
Socialist Germany of today.
When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day
build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed
barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than
incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward
countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed
people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to
keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As
far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either
from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr.
Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to
insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts
conspire together to prevent it.
Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this
long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and
thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way.
At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and
seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports
returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly
informed of the following:
President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an
unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States
and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and
Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence.
For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of
America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in
the world, for both the present and the future. Since the beginning of
the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has
steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law.
Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German
and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary
deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The
increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have
reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete
violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack,
fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have
even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal
manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and
Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to
imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany
and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was
made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several
other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no
effort to deny it.
Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt,
Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the
expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United
States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.
Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27,
1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves as finally
forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the
defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our
nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.
The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement,
which was signed today in Berlin:
Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that
has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain
with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.
Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an
armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or
Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.
Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely
together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of
bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact
concluded by them on September 27, 1940.
Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have
clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end.
We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the
Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together with
Bolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same
community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany,
and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to
annihilate our enemies.
When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead
the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of
you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle
really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking
of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so
miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it
possible.
Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than
twenty years.
When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every
sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant
and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past
generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the
German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the
duty that is ours.
The government of the United States of America, having violated in the
most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having
continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany
ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British
declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally
resorted to open military acts of aggression.
On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America
publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force
to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27,
1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.
Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically
attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus,
American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the
Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan.
The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that
the American destroyers attacked German submarines.
Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under
order of their government and contrary to international law, have
treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy
ships.
The German government therefore establishes the following facts:
Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States of America
during every period of the present war, the government of the United
States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally
proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby
virtually created a state of war.
The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic
relations with the United States of America and declares that under
these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too,
as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the
United States of America.

> gas chambers,


Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"


> or eugenics.


Far from being "evil," eugenics is actually the most beneficial and
humane discipline ever devised by the mind of man. In fact, eugenics
is the only viable long-term solution to all our social problems. As
I said on this program in 1993, eugenics is the only way to a better
world. Science has shown us that genetic structure is by far the
greatest determinant of intelligence, character, and behavior.
Unfortunately, those with the best genetic inheritance tend to have
the fewest children-and those with the lowest intelligence,
lowest potential, and worst character tend to have the most
children. This leads to a genetic deterioration of the race that
gets worse with each passing generation. No amount of education, no
laws, and no increase in the power of the police or of the state can
counter this degeneration.

Eugenics is simply the idea that we should humanely use our social
policies to encourage as much as possible the birth of children with
good genetic qualities and to discourage as much as possible the
birth of children with poor genetic qualities. Some of this could be
done with the more advanced techniques of modern reproductive
science, such as allowing surrogate mothers to carry genius-level
children in large numbers or encouraging the voluntary use of egg
banks and sperm banks to propagate the best children that our race
can possibly produce.

But most eugenics would be simple and basic and just good common
Sense. There could be endless variations on the theme of tax
deductions, tax credits, and interest-free loans extended to
families of good genetic inheritance to encourage them to give the
priceless gift of their children-most of whom will grow up into
highly-evolved creative problem-solvers-to our society. How can
that be "evil"?

It's not evil. It's really the ultimate good. After a few
generations of eugenics-after a few generations of ten times the
number of problem-solvers and culture-creators being born, and a
tenth of the number of problem-makers and culture destroyers being
born, we would have a very different world indeed. An infinitely
better world.

> I've no doubt that in the 1930s,
>whilst many British workers struggled to eat let alone find work, the
>Germans must have thought themselves lucky to have Hitler.
>
>It's true that fascism isn't all bad all of the time. Capitalism isn't
>all bad all of the time. The point is where it logically ends up for
>people, if allowed to run its course. There were massive reserves of
>wealth, and massive potential in the forces of production, all through
>the 1930s. Hitler could afford paid vacation, just as Britain could
>afford a welfare state and an NHS, even *after* spending a war chest
>to raze a significant portion of Europe's factories and infrastructure
>to the ground. But like the sell-off of council housing in the 80s,
>Hitler's long-term plan wasn't to help the working class or take
>wealth away from businessmen - it was a short-term bribe, to get the
>German peope to support Hitler's entire package that would ultimately
>be ruinous for all the people of Europe.

Franklin Roosevelt did some things to help people. But he didn't
really upset the money bag parasites who rule over us. Only Hitler did
that.


When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty
of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people,
demanding that Germans repay every nation's cost of the (First World)
war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in
Germany.

Jewish currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet,
precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A
wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of
bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms
were lost to Jewish speculators and private banks. Germans lived in
hovels. They were starving.

Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of
the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and
businesses. On top of all this came a global depression. Germany had
no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international Jewish
bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At
that point, the German government thwarted the international Jewish
banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by
declaring a global economic boycott of Germany.

Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public
works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and
private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals,
and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no
longer came from the private international Jewish bankers.

The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion
units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German
government issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury
Certificates. In this way, the National Socialists put people to
work.

Under the National Socialists, Germany's money wasn't backed by gold.
It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the
government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we require the
equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." Workers
spent those Certificates on other people's goods and services, thus
creating more jobs for more people. In this way, the German people
climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the Jew bankers.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and
Germany was back on it's feet. It had a solid, stable currency with
no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the US
and other Western countries were still out of work. Within five
years, Germany went from being the poorest nation in Europe to the
richest!

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the global
boycott by Jew-owned enterprises, and the denial of foreign credit by
Jew-owned banks. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment
and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system
that cut the Jew bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since
barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits.

Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several
monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive
superhighway. This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with
the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory,
which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned
by a private and secretive banking cartel - such as the Federal
Reserve, or the European Central Bank - rather than issued by the
government for the benefit of the people.


In "Billions For The Bankers, Debts For The People" (1984), Shelton
Emry commented:

"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which
accounts for Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world
power in five years. The German government financed its entire
operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took
the entire Capitalist and Communist worlds to destroy the German
revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Jewish
bankers."

>There's no doubt Hitler and his supporters differed from the free
>market businessmen - the international rich, in particular, were
>outraged at the idea that their personal business interests should be
>subordinated to the needs of the host nation state. But just because
>it was not liberal, free market capitalism, does not mean Nazism did
>not intend to ultimately favour the rich minority. There are many
>conceivably alternative economic models designed to enrich a small
>minority of people at the expense of the majority.

Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'

In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'

She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.

To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.

They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.

The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.

I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.

To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.

The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.

Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.

Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.

We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...

One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.

It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.

They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.

I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'

However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'

They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.

To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.

For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.

As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....

Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.

On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.

If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.

I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.

The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...

>The main problem for women is not feminism, but markets. A few decades
>ago they could have fought for the right for child-rearing to be
>recognised as socially valuable (which I think is your position too)
>and therefore remunerated directly by society,

Great!

>but it went the other
>way towards the right to participate in the markets

unfortunate

> - and
>simultaneously, organised labour has been smashed and the welfare
>state attacked, leaving women (except the very wealthiest, of course)
>worse off than ever.
>

>Frankly, not all women want to have careers, and for those who do it
>should be a matter of choice. Most women are forced into labour
>markets not because of a great desire for a career, but because they
>don't want to live in penury and bring up any children they have in
>slums.

True, mothers should be paid. They are doing their part for the nation
and should be paid just like policemen and others are paid.

[Topaz]

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

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

And for the first time in centuries politicians in this country put
aside party warfare and joined forces in working for a single goal. A
coalition government was formed in 1916 and proceeded to coordinate
the whole national life in one mighty endeavor. Laissez-faire
Economics were dropped as Britain found that these methods, practiced
so long in the years of peace had rendered her industry hopelessly
incapable of producing her needs of survival in this titanic conflict.
New industries, such as chemicals, machine tools and optics, had to be
built practically from scratch, while others, such as electricity,
aircraft and aero-engines, had to be greatly expanded, in order to
provide the sinews of war; and this was done mainly on the initiative
of the state. By the end of the war, tremendous strides had been made
in making good these previous shortcomings of industry. What the
theoretical stimulus of the "free market" had failed to do for decades
beforehand was done in just three years of corporate effort, achieved
by firm national leadership directing economic resources, and by the
whole nation, and Empire, working as a team."
"Could not the super-human efforts displayed on the battlefield in the
face of a dangerous adversity now be displayed again in the creation,
from out of the rubble of newly born nations?"

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

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

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

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

[Bill]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 21:29:38 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>On Nov. 26, 1941, Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary about
>Japan, "The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the
>first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
>
>That Roosevelt wanted to get the US into WW II is now a matter of
>record.

And quite right too.

[Bill]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 21:32:09 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living
>creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed
>to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because
>egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed.

... how, I wondered, could he physically survive on just a

>boiled egg, a few tomatoes, two or three pancakes, and a plate of
>noodles? But he actually gained weight!
>
>He drank only water. He did not smoke and would not tolerate smoking
>in his presence. At one or two o'clock in the morning he would still
>be talking, untroubled, close to his fireplace, lively, often amusing.
>He never showed any sign of weariness. Dead tired his audience might
>be, but not Hitler.
>

So...

Not a man you'd want as part of 'the gang' for a good Saturday night
out...

[Topaz]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 08:55:43 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, November 30, 1941

Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined
by Joseph Goebbels

"On 28 October, more than a month ago, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave a radio speech which apparently had as its goal
plunging the American people into uncertainty and panic and thus to
prepare gradually for the fateful intervention which the American
president desires, regardless of American public opinion. The speech
differed from all of his previous speeches in that Roosevelt did not
limit himself to the almost traditional and unconscionable and
slanderous attacks on the Führer and National Socialist Germany. This
time he made concrete accusations against the policies of the Reich,
which he attempted to prove though compromising documents he allegedly
possessed.

Mr. Roosevelt claimed that he had proof in his hands that the Axis
powers were planning to reorganize South and Central America. They
were planning to transform the existing fourteen countries into five
states that would be under their control. His proof was a secret map
allegedly produced by the Reich government. The American government
also claims to possess another Reich document. According to it, the
Reich government plans, once it has won the war, to abolish the
existing religions of the world-Catholicism, Protestantism,
Mohammedism, Hinduism. Buddhism and Judaism. They are to be replaced
by an international National Socialist church, the cross by the
swastika and God by the Führer. That is what he claims.

It is clear to us that Mr. Roosevelt needed this grand swindle to whip
up American public opinion. He needed the heaviest possible
ammunition, since the American people are at the moment more
intelligent than their government and want absolutely nothing to do
with the war in Europe. We really are not all that interested in Mr.
Roosevelt's opinion of the intelligence of his people nor in what he
thinks them capable of believing, and normally would see no need to
reply to his bald-faced and outrageous lies which so clearly bear the
signs of fabrication. In this case, however, it is a matter of a
political falsification which seems to us to have a clear and ominous
purpose, and gave us such an easy chance to show up the liars to the
entire world that we could hardly let the opportunity pass. We had to
overcome our moral scruples, however, to confront the liar and ask him
where he got these alleged documents from, where they can be found,
and if he was ready to show them to the public.

Things went as we expected. Mr. Roosevelt, the president of a nation
of 130 million, dodged our questions. He claimed the authenticity of
the documents was unassailable; he had them. They could not be
published, however, since they were secret and publishing them would
reveal the source. And the map in question that carved up Central and
South America had markings in pencil which could compromise the source
that provided them. He, Roosevelt, did not want to cause any
difficulties for the poor chap who passed them along.

Would that we had such a president! He is a well-meaning soul who
cares for his scoundrels. Given his speeches and actions, he would not
hesitate to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield,
even perhaps sacrificing them in service to his crazy plans of
conquest, but the thought of causing a fine and honorable traitor any
trouble breaks his heart. As one can imagine, Roosevelt's answer was
not very convincing proof of his hair-raising allegations either at
home or abroad. Our tough questions bore fruit. We used the press and
radio to propose to the American president that he might publish the
incriminating map of Central and South America, perhaps either erasing
the ominous pencil markings or covering them up with paper, and to at
least publish the text of our notorious plan to begin a campaign
against all the world's religions once the war was over, from Jehovah
to Confucius to Christ.

Mr. Roosevelt sank into silence, saying nothing at all. Only one of
his creatures, the former Argentinean bordello-owner and pimp Taborda,
who happened to be visiting him at the time, said that he had been
able to sneak a look at the map, and that all was as Mr. Roosevelt
said. More he could not say, since he had given his word of honor.
One can understand our reluctance to consider the word of honor of so
dubious an underworld figure as absolutely convincing. We looked
further, and since we could learn nothing more given the stubborn
silence of the accuser, we attempted to lure him into a response by
massive attacks. Alas, the normally talkative gentleman seemed to have
forgotten how to speak. Even the attempts of the American press to
learn something more as he visited one of the famous skyscrapers were
in vain.

The Reich government published two formal denials on 1 November, which
boxed Roosevelt's ears so strongly that he had to chose between
revealing his documents or proving himself a forger and liar to the
entire world. He chose the latter. The U.S. press gave headline
treatment to the German denials and asked for a response. Mr.
Roosevelt accepted the blows, rubbed his checks and said nothing. We
made every conceivable suggestion to ease the publication of the
documents, but the U.S. president preferred to be thought a liar and
forger than to prove his absurd accusations.

That's the way things are. We do not flatter ourselves by believing
that we have some way to force Mr. Roosevelt to speak. He apparently
has every reason to hope the matter will be forgotten. When he made
his charges, one could perhaps generously grant that he believed them.
It was at least possible that he had been the victim of some sort of
swindle and had believed in the documents' authenticity. That is no
longer possible, for if he had been acting honestly he would have
provided the evidence supporting his accusations. He has not done so.
That is sufficient proof that he was not the victim of a forgery,
rather that he himself was directly or indirectly involved. This is a
matter of war and peace, and the American public has every right to
examine its president and his actions, to ask him about these
documents, why Mr. Roosevelt has not published them. whether he still
stands by his speech of 28 October, and what he plans to do to restore
the damage done to his reputation by the two German denials that
accuse him of forgery.

One always feels the need to wash one's hands after being forced to
deal with the methods of U.S. interventionism. It is so unpleasant and
filthy that one shudders. One hears the pious nonsense of the
Jewish-ruled world plutocracy over the radio or reads them in the
press, one need only to look behind the scenes to feel pity for the
miseries of mankind. That such a man has the impudence to judge us, to
call on God and the world as his witnesses of the purity of his deeds,
to incite war and send innocent people singing "Onward Christian
Soldiers" to battle for his filthy financial interests can only fill
anyone with even the most primitive sense of decency with the deepest
horror. Were there only such people in the world, one would have to
despise humanity..."

[Topaz]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 08:58:58 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>So...
>
>Not a man you'd want as part of 'the gang' for a good Saturday night
>out...

"He was born into humble circumstances, the son of an obscure civil
servant in a remote corner of a crumbling empire, yet his name
resounds throughout the world to this day.

He was rejected by the universities of his time for formal enrollment
in art and in architecture, and yet he erected mighty buildings and
monuments, and today a simple postcard that he drew in ink or charcoal
fetches staggering sums at auction.

He fought as a front line soldier through all four years of the
greatest war in history up to that time, never rising above the rank
of corporal, but he won both of his country's highest decorations for
bravery under fire and rose to command the mightiest armies on earth.
Almost unique in the history of his century, he was not a lawyer or an
aristocrat or a man of inherited wealth and privilege, but a man who
once earned his daily bread with the labor of his hands, and yet he
conquered politics and rose to the leadership of the most brilliant
and creative nation on earth. So that his people might travel across
the land he loved quickly and cheaply, he created a simple and sturdy
automobile still in use today, and a network of highways that still
spans Germany. His game and forestry laws are still in force, and are
praised by ecologists as a model of environmental protection. His
economic program received the sincerest form of flattery from the
loathsome Roosevelt, who stole it and copied it into the context of
the American Depression as his own.

Every man who ever met him personally, even those who became his
bitterest enemies, spoke of him forever afterwards with awe and
admiration. His courtesy and his gallantry toward women were
legendary. With his power and his prestige he could have had any woman
he wanted, but the woman he chose as his life's partner, and who
eventually died by his side, was a simple and humble daughter of the
people.

He did not drink. He did not smoke. He was a lifelong lover of animals
and children and was happiest in the company of toddlers rather than
statesmen and soldiers, and no one ever overheard him use a profane
word or tell a smutty joke. He lifted his people up from the mud of
defeat and despair and alien domination, and he died trying to do the
same for all of us.

To this day, his memory is kept green by the Aryan peoples of Germany
and the world, even though it means prison, and in some countries
death, to honor him or his legacy within the sight or hearing of the
tyrant. He has been slandered, vilified, lied about, cursed,
distorted, and damned every day since his death by the most powerful
and evil tyranny mankind has ever known, and yet his name and his
Symbol cannot be suppressed by force or by propaganda. As we begin
this new Millennium, his book is read and his name is on more lips
than ever before and his image and his strength fills the hearts of a
whole new generation of young Aryan men and women."


"When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
no longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks -

Then lend her your arm in support,
Escort her with happy pleasure.
The hour will come when, weeping, you
Must accompany her on her final walk.

And if she asks you something,
Then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her,
Not impatiently, but with gentle calm.

And if she cannot understand you properly
Explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour,
When her mouth asks for nothing more."

Those lines were written by Adolf Hitler, in 1923."


In the Thicket of the Forest at Artois
"It was in the thicket of the Artois Wood.
Deep in the trees, on blood-soaked ground,
Lay stretched a wounded German warrior,
And his cries rang out in the night.
In vain ... no echo answered his plea ...
Will he bleed to death like a beast,
That shot in the gut dies alone?

Then suddenly ...
Heavy steps approach from the right
He hears how they stamp on the forest floor ...
And new hope springs from his soul.
And now from the left ...
And now from both sides ...

Two men approach his miserable bed
A German it is, and a Frenchman.
And each watches the other with distrustful glance, And threatening
they aim their weapons.
The German warrior asks:
"What do you do here?"
"I was touched by the needy one's call for help."
"It's your enemy!"
"It is a man who suffers."

And both, wordless, lowered their weapons.
Then entwined their hands
And, with muscles tensed, carefully lifted
The wounded warrior, as if on a stretcher,
And carried him through the woods.

'Til they came to the German outposts.
"Now it is over. He will get good care."
And the Frenchman turns back toward the woods.
But the German grasps for his hand,
Looks, moved, into sorrow-dimmed eyes
And says to him with earnest foreboding:
"I know not what fate holds for us,
Which inscrutably rules in the stars.
Perhaps I shall fall, a victim of your bullet.
Maybe mine will fell you on the sand
For indifferent is the chance of battles.

Yet, however it may be and whatever may come:
We lived these sacred hours,
Where man found himself in man ...
And now, farewell! And God be with you!"

Adolf Hitler, 1916

[Bill]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:45:42 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 08:55:43 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 May 2013 21:29:38 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Nov. 26, 1941, Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary about
>>>Japan, "The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the
>>>first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
>>>
>>>That Roosevelt wanted to get the US into WW II is now a matter of
>>>record.
>>
>>And quite right too.
>
>
>An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,

Isn't he the one who murdered his six children?

[Topaz]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 22:13:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,
>
>Isn't he the one who murdered his six children?

German leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the allies
were subhuman monsters:


The Diaries of Charles A. Lindbergh, p.986

"That young girl riding on her bicycle - she must know that on the
day the Russians come she will probably be raped by a dozen soldiers.
When do they come? In days? In weeks? That, we have not told the
Germans. She has a good face - nicely dressed in old but clean and
brightly colored garments - like the daughter of a middle class
American family. I realize that we Americans are holding her at
Dessau. She cannot flee to safety. We will not let her pass our
sentries on the roads. We are turning her and thousands of
others like her over to the Soviet soldiers for their sport. I feel
ashamed."

p.961
"German children look in through the window. We have more food than
we need, but regulations prevent giving it to them. It is difficult to
look at them. I feel ashamed of myself, of my people, as I eat and
watch those children. They are not to blame for the war. They are
hungry children. What right have we to stuff ourselves while they look
on - well-fed men eating, leaving unwanted food on plates, while
hungry children look on."

Berlin Correspondent, The Times, September 10th, 1945

"...Another small boy turned out of Danzig had a scrawled postcard
attached to him stating that his soldier father was long since missing
and that his mother and two sisters had died of hunger."

At this time, Denmark, formerly occupied by the Germans as a means
of denying the allies a North Sea bridgehead was bursting at the seams
with surplus food and was pleading with the allies to put it to good
use. It was refused.

[Andy Wainwright]

OK, Hitler was actually intelligent and compassionate. He was also a
total fruitcake.

I don't blame Hitler for WW2 or the holocaust. For example if I told
folk to go out and butcher 20 million or so Europeans people would just
laugh at me. The nastier elements of big business, including shamefully
some allied-based and Jewish-owned saw there was a few quid to be made
out of this fruitcake- so they put him in power.

[Bill]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 21:17:09 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 22:13:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,
>>
>>Isn't he the one who murdered his six children?
>
>German leaders believed in death before dishonor.

Well, except the ones who ran.

Look, killing babies is not a valid political action.

[Topaz]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:00:09 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 21:17:09 -0500, Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 May 2013 22:13:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,
>>>
>>>Isn't he the one who murdered his six children?
>>
>>German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
>
>Well, except the ones who ran.
>
>Look, killing babies is not a valid political action.

German leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the allies
were subhuman monsters:

Eyewitness account by Mrs. Leonora Geier (nee Cavoa, born Oct 22,
1925, Sao Paulo,
Brazil) to Dr. Trutz Foelsche, Ph.D

Deutsche Nationalzeitung, No. 17-65, p. 7:

"On the morning of February, 16, (1945) a Russian detachment
occupied the RAD (Reichsarbeitsdienst) camp Vilmsee near Neustettin.
The Commissar told me in good German language that the camp was
dissolved and that we, as a unit with uniforms (RAD - German Labour
Service, not military uniforms), would be transported to a collection
camp. Since I, as a Brazilian citizen, belong to an allied nation, he
asked me to take over as a leader of the transport that went to
Neustettin, into the yard of the former iron factory. We were about
500 girls (Maidens of the Reichsarbeitsdienst - German Labour
Service).

He said I could come into the orderly room, which I accepted.
Immediately he directed me to make no further contact with other
women, because they were members of an illegal army. On my response
that this what not true, he cut me off with the remark that I would be
shot immediately, if I would repeat in any form a similar statement.

"Suddenly I heard loud screams, and promptly five girls were brought
in by the two Red Armists. The Commissar ordered them to undress. When
they, in a sense of shame, refused to do so, he ordered me to undress
them and follow him with the girls. We walked through the yard to the
former factory kitchen, which was completely cleared out
except for some tables along the window wall. It was dreadfully cold
and the unfortunate girls trembled. In the huge tiled room several
Russians waited for us who were obviously making obscene remarks
because every word was followed by loud laughter.

The Commissar then directed me to watch how one makes sissies out of
'The Master Race'.

Now two Poles, clad in trousers only, entered the room. At their
sight the girls cried out.

Briskly, they seized the first of the two girls and bent her over with
her back over the edge of the table until her joints cracked. I almost
fainted when one of the men pulled his knife and cut off her right
breast in the presence of the other girls. I have never heard a
human being scream as desperately as this young woman. After this
'operation' both men stabbed her several times in the abdomen,
accompanied by the howling of the Russians.

The next girl cried for mercy, in vain, since she was exceptionally
pretty. I had the impression that the 'work' was carried out very
slowly. The other three girls were completely broken down, cried for
their mothers and begged for a speedy death, but also
fate them overtook.

The last of the girls was still half a child, with barely developed
breasts, one tore the flesh literally from her ribs until the white
bone appeared.

Again, five girls were brought in. This time, they had been selected
carefully. All were developed and pretty. When they saw the bodies of
their predecessors, they began to cry and scream. Weak as they were,
they tried to defend themselves but to no avail; the Poles became more
cruel every time. One of the girls, they cut open her womb and trunk
over the whole length; poured a can of machine oil into the mutilated
body and tried to set fire to it. Another was shot in the genitals by
a Russia, before they cut off her breasts.

A great howling began when someone brought a saw from a toolbox.
Now, using the saw, they set to work to the breasts of the girls to
pieces, which in a short period of time led to the floor being covered
with blood. A blood rage seized the Russians. Continuously
one of them brought more and more girls.

Like a red fog, I saw the gruesome happenings again and again and I
perceived the inhuman screaming at the torture of their breasts and
the load groaning at the mutilation of their private parts. When my
legs failed me I was forced into a chair. The Commissar persistently
watched me to make sure I was looking toward the torture scenes. In
fact, when I had to vomit, they even paused with their tortures. One
girl had not undressed completely, she may have been somewhat older
than the rest of the girls who were about 17-years old. One of the
torturers soaked her bra with oil and ignited it and, while she cried
out, another drove a thin iron rod into her vagina until it emerged at
her naval.

In the yard they liquidated entire groups of girls, after they had
selected the prettiest ones for the torture room. The air was filled
with the death cries of many hundreds of girls. But in view of what
happened here, the slaughter outside could be considered more humane.
It was a dreadful fact that not one of the girls brought into the
torture room lost here consciousness.

In their horror all were equal in their expressions. It was always
the same; the begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when their
breasts were cut and their genitals mutilated. Several times the
slaughter was interrupted to sweep out the blood and to clear away the
corpses.

That evening I sank into a severe nerve fever. From then on I lack
any recollection until the moment I awoke in a military hospital.
German troops had recaptured Neustettin temporarily, and had liberated
us. As I learned later, approximately 2,000 girls were murdered during
the first three days of the first round of Russian occupation."

[Topaz]

by James Buchanan

Let's say the Germans merely removed the Jews from positions of
political power and banned them from the legal profession. Germany
went from devastating economic poverty in 1932 to full employment just
a couple years later. If an incredible economic improvement can be
achieved, merely by removing the Jews from power (and replacing them
with patriotic nationalists), then every Gentile nation in the world
should give this a try.

Obviously the Jews don't want anyone else getting the idea of removing
them to create prosperity. It was a huge embarrassment for the Jews to
see Germany so prosperous in the mid-1930s after removing them from
power. They considered this a dangerous precedent. To deal with this
"problem" the Jewish World Congress declared war on Germany in 1933.
This declaration of war at least encouraged a world-wide boycott
against Germany and at worst encouraged other nations of the world to
become hostile toward Germany. (The Jews curiously sanctioned the
Germans before the Germans passed any laws restricting the Jews.) More
importantly the Jews pushed vicious anti-German slander in all the
Jewish-owned newspapers in the West in the years leading up to World
War Two. The Communist mass murder of 30 million people in Russia and
the Ukraine received almost no publicity in the Jewish media. Most
people in the West only heard a serious mention of these Communist
mass murders beginning in the 1980s. Instead, the Jewish media focused
all their hatred and agitation against Germany and its allies.

After six years of relentless agitation, the Jews pushed England and
France into war with Germany. Only two years later, FDR and his cabal
of Jews provoked a war with Japan (and Germany).

Naturally, the Jews did not want future historians to say: "World War
Two was provoked by the Jewish media in retaliation for Germany
removing the Jews from power." The Jews needed a new reason for World
War Two. A reason that painted their enemies as unquestionably evil.
So they invented the Holocaust.

The Holocaust stood mostly unchallenged for decades after the war
because people feared being branded "Nazi-sympathizers" for
questioning its details. The truth always comes out in the long run.
Professor Arthur Butz published his famous work "The Hoax of the 20th
Century" in 1977 detailing a very solid argument against this war
propaganda. Dr. Butz pointed out that the world population of Jews
remained at about 16 million before and after the war. He also noted
that half a million Jews remained in Paris after four years of German
occupation. Both these facts strongly suggest the Holocaust is a
fraud, but the political power of the Jews has suppressed and punished
any public questioning of the Holocaust to this day. David Irving
joined the ranks of Revisionist historians several years ago and went
from a famous successful author to a pariah thanks to persecution by
the Jews.

The Institute for Historical Review has done great work exposing the
Holocaust as a great historical fraud. Anyone interested in looking
for historical truth should visit their website. It's a shock for many
people to see how much propaganda we've been force fed.

http://www.ihr.org

[Bert]

In news:qrpqo85fkmetgppvv...@4ax.com Topaz

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

> German leaders believed in death before dishonor.

But they managed to get both.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Topaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ste]

> governments vainly attempted in ...
>
> read more »

You know, these reams of quotations and articles you post, would be a
lot more bearable if you could recite them in the loud, sharp, angry
manner of Hitler!

[Topaz]

Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.

"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."

"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."

"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."

"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."

"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."

"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."

"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."

"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."

"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."

"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."

"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."

"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."

"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."

"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."

"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."

"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."

"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"

"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."

"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"

"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"

"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."

"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."

"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."

"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."

"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."

"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."