"Passion" and Anti-Semitism

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

After Mel Gibson's film "Passion," anti-semitism came back under the claim that Jews were responsible for crucifixion of Jesus. Since it was God's will that Jesus die on the cross, the blame for the death of Jesus does not belong with Jews, Romans, humanity or Satan; it belongs with God. But there are even more salient and less ecumenical arguments against this ugly trend.

In 1930s and 1940s, German people, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, made it their mission to wipe out the Jews. One would think that I, as a Jewish person, would hate German people; but I do not. The reason is that very few of the German people alive now were alive during the Second World War, and they cannot be blamed for the actions of their ancestors.

Actions which many of them view with shame and embarrassment and do not want to ever repeat again.

How much more so in case of Jewish people, none of whom were alive 2000 years ago and most of whom are nothing like Caiaphas.

In matter of crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews were only following the law of Moses. The First Commandment is "thou shalt have no God before me"; and Jesus, in claiming to be God, was seen as being guilty of direct violation of the First Commandment. That - following the law of Moses, and not any kind of "wickedness" - is the reason for the Jews of the time insisting on crucifying Jesus even while letting off a murderer. According to their religious law - the law that the same people who want to kill Jews insist on putting in classrooms and court houses - Jesus committed the worst possible crime; and their insistence on crucifixion of Jesus had nothing to do with Jews being evil but with Jews following the law of Moses.

Furthermore, if Jews are to be held responsible for the alleged actions of their ancestors 2000 years ago, then English, Spanish, Portuguese, Americans, French, Germans, Japanese and many others all have vastly greater amounts of blood on their hands. This blood includes the over 100 million people in the Americas whom they slaughtered and over 100 million people in Africa whom they enslaved. And it is a stain that was acquired a lot more recently, in the last several centuries, rather than 2000 years ago.

All of these are far greater sins than anything of which Jews can ever be accused, and all have been committed in much more recent times.

What's amusing is that the same people who want to kill the Jews are the people who claim to swear by the Western civilization. I got news for these people: Jewish people contributed far more per unit of population to Western Civilization than has any other group. The number of Jewish Noble Prize-winning scientists is comparable to that of Germany and England combined. A vast proportion of great filmmakers, journalists and educators are Jewish. And Jews have a strong presence in finance, in business and in any number of pursuits that drive the economy.

So it's about time to turn the tables on this despicable trend and its sustainers. Just about any ethnic group that decides to militate against Jews is guilty of far greater crimes than the Jews, and it is crimes that have been committed much more recently.

And if I, as a Jewish person, can refrain from hating the German people even though their ancestors were Nazis, then how much more should the people whose ancestors were not mass-murdered by Jewish people refrain from hating the Jews.

[Bret Cahill]

Are East Indian or Muslim prejudices about Jews noticealy different
than those of Christians or other westerners?

Could you tell if a poster was a Christian anti semite or a Wahabbi?


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

Back when BushCo was doing quagmires Mel Gibson said "Jews start every
war." I'd never heard that one before, not even from other foaming at
the mouth anti semites. Every ignorant winger has his own crazy
ideas.

Even so there might be certain things that stand out in different
cultures.


Bret Cahill

[Topaz]

Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say
being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or
"anti-German"? Of course the Jews think
they are special. Any other group could be our enemy, but not the
Jews, they say. The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies. The
Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only
friend in the Middle East. The truth is that before these Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.

No one is moaning because America once fought the British. But
suddenly Jews can not be the enemy under any circumstances. Why is
that? Because the Jews control the media. Think outside the box.

Now that America is ruled by the Jews it is no insult to be called
"anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we care about their self
serving verbiage.

The Jewish controlled media said the French were "cheese eating
surrender monkeys". Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the
Jews howl "anti-Semite"? Because the French don't control the media,
Jews do.

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."


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

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

[Zerkon]

In article <e0f31bab-2e91-4188...@googlegroups.com>,
ibsh...@gmail.com says...

> Mel Gibson's film "Passion,
>

Was shot outside hollywood with Gibson taking charge of and making money
from most everything. The Money Boyz in Hollywood got pissed. Anti-
semitism was thrown out for the liberal rubes to chew on. This movie was
no different in terms of anti-semitism than the "King Of of Kings" circa
1961.

You are trolling using PC racism and the need for victim indentity
coupled with a narcissism of the most boring kind. Stale and lazy
thinking with hate baiting as a subtext.






--
"The space ship hung in the air
exactly like
a brick does not"

Thus spaketh The Adams

[Bret Cahill]

> > Mel Gibson's film "Passion,
>
> Was shot outside hollywood with Gibson taking charge of and making money
> from most everything. The Money Boyz in Hollywood got pissed.

1. Gibson was already a Hollywood billionaire.

2. Everyone is Hollywood is always happy to see anyone making money
in entertainment.

> Anti-
> semitism was thrown out for the liberal rubes to chew on.

Gibson just does what is necessary to bottom fish his audience.
Demand and supply. The anti semitism problem may be bigger than
Gibson.

> This movie was
> no different in terms of anti-semitism than the "King Of of Kings" circa
> 1961.

Gibson said, "Jews start all wars" which is not only nut bag as well
as anti semitic, it is uniquely Gibson nut bag.


Bret Cahill

[Immortalist]

No matter the tribe, that’s how all tribes act—they seek to dehumanize
and eradicate non-members. Why, it’s almost like they act that way
without even thinking.

No cultural group on Earth seems capable of existing without
demonizing and targeting a cultural “other.” Whether it’s manifested
through blood (race and ethnicity) or water (religion and ideology),
tribal behavior seems indelibly identical. Groups can’t seem to exist,
much less thrive, without a designated scapegoad scapegoat.

Despite all the efforts to “get past” racism and “erace” it, all human
social groups seem incapable of getting past the same sort of ingroup/
outgroup, good guys/bad guys, devils/angels binary thinking for which
they condemn those pesky, incestuous, snaggletoothed “racists”—who, as
luck would have it, always seem to belong to the same race, even
though, well, um, race doesn’t exist.

If “racism” is merely a dishonestly dirty word to describe white
tribalism, it may cut deeper and ultimately be more ineradicable than
relative trifles such as ideological and religious schisms. If it’s a
natural instinct that can’t be eliminated without ceaseless Maoist-
style propaganda, shaming, and coercion, then political measures to
counter it must inevitably become totalitarian. I call it
“egalitotalitarianism.”

If you want to get conspiratorial—or at least acknowledge the fact
that “divide and conquer” is the oldest trick in the political playbook
—stuffing a nation full of people who are bound to have tribal
differences is a good way to keep them at each other’s throats rather
than focused on the power mechanisms that control them.

I’m a rare bird in that I’m not seduced by any tribal drumbeat,
whether ethnic, religious, or ideological. Yet by default, I belong to
one of the world’s most persistently persecuted minorities in that I
believe human history and social conflict are best viewed through the
cold microscope of facts and logic rather than the dim prism of
moralistic mystical groupthink. So when I approach the radioactive and
comically stigmatized concept of “racism,” my first question isn’t
“How do we stop it?”; it’s “Why does it exist in the first place?”

Modern social scientists, who are little more than unscientific
socialists, variously view racism as a cancer, a sin, an aberration,
and a mental illness rather than a natural and ubiquitous phenomenon.
Ignoring the fact that every culture throughout human history has been
ethnocentric, they frame racism as an exclusive product of white
supremacy, European colonialism, and predatory palefaced capitalism.
They also shellac it with a thick gloppy glaze of moralistic
condemnation, depicting it as the worst and most destructive of all
possible human instincts. The psychological establishment is well on
its way to depicting “sociobiological” as personality disorders rather
than natural drives toward self-preservation, which in a bygone era
were seen as the epitome of mental health.

And they blame it all on “culture” rather than biology, oblivious to
the idea that it is most likely sociobiological forces that dictate
and generate culture.

Without devolving into the predictable orgy of cuss words and finger-
pointing and crudely painted devil puppets and endlessly unspooling
bloody-rag hysteria, a simple sociobiological explanation for the
tribal instinct that’s known as “racism” would account for its
ubiquity. It would also explain its nagging persistence despite the
relentless and increasingly iron-fisted attempts to eradicate it.
Maybe it’s merely a natural group survival instinct—neither innately
“good” or “bad,” which are subjective value judgments—but objectively
natural, so maybe you should all calm the hell down.

http://takimag.com/article/the_nagging_persistence_of_tribalism_jim_goad/print
http://amagem.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/racism-nepotism-and-tribalism/

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 12:29:27 AM UTC+10, Zerkon wrote:
> In article <e0f31bab-2e91-4188...@googlegroups.com>, ibsh...@gmail.com says... > Mel Gibson's film "Passion, > Was shot outside hollywood with Gibson taking charge of and making money from most everything. The Money Boyz in Hollywood got pissed. Anti- semitism was thrown out for the liberal rubes to chew on. This movie was no different in terms of anti-semitism than the "King Of of Kings" circa 1961. You are trolling using PC racism and the need for victim indentity coupled with a narcissism of the most boring kind. Stale and lazy thinking with hate baiting as a subtext. -- "The space ship hung in the air exactly like a brick does not" Thus spaketh The Adams

Hey idiot, I'm addressing a recent trend that has the potential to turn into something really ugly. This has nothing to do with "trolling" or "victimhood" or "narcissism"; it has to do with social responsibility. As for PC, I've fought it ever since I knew what PC was, and I have done much more by way of fighting it than have you.

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 2:20:43 AM UTC+10, Immortalist wrote:
> On Oct 2, 5:14 am, ibsham...@gmail.com wrote: > After Mel Gibson's film "Passion," anti-semitism came back under the claim that Jews were responsible for crucifixion of Jesus. Since it was God's will that Jesus die on the cross, the blame for the death of Jesus does not belong with Jews, Romans, humanity or Satan; it belongs with God. But there are even more salient and less ecumenical arguments against this ugly trend. > > In 1930s and 1940s, German people, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, made it their mission to wipe out the Jews. One would think that I, as a Jewish person, would hate German people; but I do not. The reason is that very few of the German people alive now were alive during the Second World War, and they cannot be blamed for the actions of their ancestors. > > Actions which many of them view with shame and embarrassment and do not want to ever repeat again. > > How much more so in case of Jewish people, none of whom were alive 2000 years ago and most of whom are nothing like Caiaphas. > > In matter of crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews were only following the law of Moses. The First Commandment is "thou shalt have no God before me"; and Jesus, in claiming to be God, was seen as being guilty of direct violation of the First Commandment. That - following the law of Moses, and not any kind of "wickedness" - is the reason for the Jews of the time insisting on crucifying Jesus even while letting off a murderer. According to their religious law - the law that the same people who want to kill Jews insist on putting in classrooms and court houses - Jesus committed the worst possible crime; and their insistence on crucifixion of Jesus had nothing to do with Jews being evil but with Jews following the law of Moses. > > Furthermore, if Jews are to be held responsible for the alleged actions of their ancestors 2000 years ago, then English, Spanish, Portuguese, Americans, French, Germans, Japanese and many others all have vastly greater amounts of blood on their hands. This blood includes the over 100 million people in the Americas whom they slaughtered and over 100 million people in Africa whom they enslaved. And it is a stain that was acquired a lot more recently, in the last several centuries, rather than 2000 years ago. > > All of these are far greater sins than anything of which Jews can ever be accused, and all have been committed in much more recent times. > > What's amusing is that the same people who want to kill the Jews are the people who claim to swear by the Western civilization. I got news for these people: Jewish people contributed far more per unit of population to Western Civilization than has any other group. The number of Jewish Noble Prize-winning scientists is comparable to that of Germany and England combined. A vast proportion of great filmmakers, journalists and educators are Jewish. And Jews have a strong presence in finance, in business and in any number of pursuits that drive the economy. > > So it's about time to turn the tables on this despicable trend and its sustainers. Just about any ethnic group that decides to militate against Jews is guilty of far greater crimes than the Jews, and it is crimes that have been committed much more recently. > > And if I, as a Jewish person, can refrain from hating the German people even though their ancestors were Nazis, then how much more should the people whose ancestors were not mass-murdered by Jewish people refrain from hating the Jews. No matter the tribe, that’s how all tribes act—they seek to dehumanize and eradicate non-members. Why, it’s almost like they act that way without even thinking. No cultural group on Earth seems capable of existing without demonizing and targeting a cultural “other.” Whether it’s manifested through blood (race and ethnicity) or water (religion and ideology), tribal behavior seems indelibly identical. Groups can’t seem to exist, much less thrive, without a designated scapegoad scapegoat. Despite all the efforts to “get past” racism and “erace” it, all human social groups seem incapable of getting past the same sort of ingroup/ outgroup, good guys/bad guys, devils/angels binary thinking for which they condemn those pesky, incestuous, snaggletoothed “racists”—who, as luck would have it, always seem to belong to the same race, even though, well, um, race doesn’t exist. If “racism” is merely a dishonestly dirty word to describe white tribalism, it may cut deeper and ultimately be more ineradicable than relative trifles such as ideological and religious schisms. If it’s a natural instinct that can’t be eliminated without ceaseless Maoist- style propaganda, shaming, and coercion, then political measures to counter it must inevitably become totalitarian. I call it “egalitotalitarianism.” If you want to get conspiratorial—or at least acknowledge the fact that “divide and conquer” is the oldest trick in the political playbook —stuffing a nation full of people who are bound to have tribal differences is a good way to keep them at each other’s throats rather than focused on the power mechanisms that control them. I’m a rare bird in that I’m not seduced by any tribal drumbeat, whether ethnic, religious, or ideological. Yet by default, I belong to one of the world’s most persistently persecuted minorities in that I believe human history and social conflict are best viewed through the cold microscope of facts and logic rather than the dim prism of moralistic mystical groupthink. So when I approach the radioactive and comically stigmatized concept of “racism,” my first question isn’t “How do we stop it?”; it’s “Why does it exist in the first place?” Modern social scientists, who are little more than unscientific socialists, variously view racism as a cancer, a sin, an aberration, and a mental illness rather than a natural and ubiquitous phenomenon. Ignoring the fact that every culture throughout human history has been ethnocentric, they frame racism as an exclusive product of white supremacy, European colonialism, and predatory palefaced capitalism. They also shellac it with a thick gloppy glaze of moralistic condemnation, depicting it as the worst and most destructive of all possible human instincts. The psychological establishment is well on its way to depicting “sociobiological” as personality disorders rather than natural drives toward self-preservation, which in a bygone era were seen as the epitome of mental health. And they blame it all on “culture” rather than biology, oblivious to the idea that it is most likely sociobiological forces that dictate and generate culture. Without devolving into the predictable orgy of cuss words and finger- pointing and crudely painted devil puppets and endlessly unspooling bloody-rag hysteria, a simple sociobiological explanation for the tribal instinct that’s known as “racism” would account for its ubiquity. It would also explain its nagging persistence despite the relentless and increasingly iron-fisted attempts to eradicate it. Maybe it’s merely a natural group survival instinct—neither innately “good” or “bad,” which are subjective value judgments—but objectively natural, so maybe you should all calm the hell down. http://takimag.com/article/the_nagging_persistence_of_tribalism_jim_goad/print http://amagem.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/racism-nepotism-and-tribalism/

Interesting take. I am not aware of Incans, Africans, or Japanese and Hindus for much of their history having an external ethnic scapegoat. That tribalism exists for as long as anyone can trace, is of course known. I think that the people you're talking about want to go above tribalism and toward everyone's identification with humanity and believe that much more things can be accomplished that way along with less destruction and war. It's a noble idea at any rate, especially when it is expressed by the people who otherwise would be beneficiaries of racist attitudes.

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:21:28 AM UTC+10, Topaz wrote:
> Jews say that being "anti-Semitic" is a terrible crime. Do they say being "anti-Arab" is a terrible crime? What about "anti-Christian", or "anti-German"?

Read before responding. I have stated repeatedly that, even though I am Jewish and have every reason to hate German people, I do not.

Whereas you haven't had your ancestors massacred by Jews and continue with your idiotic stance of hating the Jewish people.

>Of course the Jews think they are special.

And Germans, English and Americans do not?

All of the above groups have hubris at least as great as, and in many cases greater than, that of the Jews.

Just read up on "American exceptionalism," or the English view of themselves as the light of civilization or the Germans who think that they are a master race.

Even Russia thinks that it's the Third Rome and the Muslims that they are the only people in the world with ethics.

Thinking oneself special is international and timeless. And it is nowhere close to being limited to the Jews.

> Any other group could be our enemy, but not the Jews, they say.

I do not say anything of the sort.

>The Jews tell us the Arabs are our enemies.

The attacks on "sandniggers" take place in redneck parts of America, where there are no Jews and most people are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

>The Jewish controlled media tells us that the Jews are America's only friend >in the Middle East.

Oh yeah, Fox News people and Rush Limbaugh are all Jews.

>The truth is that before these Jews America didn't have any enemies in the >Middle East.

Ayatollah saw America as the Great Satan. He did not see Israel or Jews as the Great Satan; he saw America as the Great Satan. And not because of its alliance with Israel.

> No one is moaning because America once fought the British. But suddenly Jews > can not be the enemy under any circumstances.

Whose enemy?

>Why is that? Because the Jews control the media.

Do Jews also send voices into your head?

> Think outside the box.

For as long as it's not also inside the swastika.

> Now that America is ruled by the Jews

... and Obama is a Muslim terrorist, and global warming is a communist hoax, and the earth is flat...

>it is no insult to be called "anti-Semite". The insult is that they think we >care about their self serving verbiage. The Jewish controlled media said the >French were "cheese eating surrender monkeys".

It's your type of people, not the Jews, that hate the French.

>Why can't the French howl "anti-French" like the Jews howl "anti-Semite"?

The French are free to howl however much they want. Indeed they can be dependent upon to do that.

>Because the French don't control the media, Jews do.

If you feel under-represented in the media, I suggest you get a journalism degree and go to work for TV.

[Bret Cahill]

> > After Mel Gibson's film "Passion," anti-semitism came back under the claim that Jews were responsible for crucifixion of Jesus. Since it was God's will that Jesus die on the cross, the blame for the death of Jesus does not belong with Jews, Romans, humanity or Satan; it belongs with God. But there are even more salient and less ecumenical arguments against this ugly trend.
>
> > In 1930s and 1940s, German people, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, made it their mission to wipe out the Jews. One would think that I, as a Jewish person, would hate German people; but I do not. The reason is that very few of the German people alive now were alive during the Second World War, and they cannot be blamed for the actions of their ancestors.
>
> > Actions which many of them view with shame and embarrassment and do not want to ever repeat again.
>
> > How much more so in case of Jewish people, none of whom were alive 2000 years ago and most of whom are nothing like Caiaphas.
>
> > In matter of crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews were only following the law of Moses. The First Commandment is "thou shalt have no God before me"; and Jesus, in claiming to be God, was seen as being guilty of direct violation of the First Commandment. That - following the law of Moses, and not any kind of "wickedness" - is the reason for the Jews of the time insisting on crucifying Jesus even while letting off a murderer. According to their religious law - the law that the same people who want to kill Jews insist on putting in classrooms and court houses - Jesus committed the worst possible crime; and their insistence on crucifixion of Jesus had nothing to do with Jews being evil but with Jews following the law of Moses.
>
> > Furthermore, if Jews are to be held responsible for the alleged actions of their ancestors 2000 years ago, then English, Spanish, Portuguese, Americans, French, Germans, Japanese and many others all have vastly greater amounts of blood on their hands. This blood includes the over 100 million people in the Americas whom they slaughtered and over 100 million people in Africa whom they enslaved. And it is a stain that was acquired a lot more recently, in the last several centuries, rather than 2000 years ago.
>
> > All of these are far greater sins than anything of which Jews can ever be accused, and all have been committed in much more recent times.
>
> > What's amusing is that the same people who want to kill the Jews are the people who claim to swear by the Western civilization. I got news for these people: Jewish people contributed far more per unit of population to Western Civilization than has any other group. The number of Jewish Noble Prize-winning scientists is comparable to that of Germany and England combined. A vast proportion of great filmmakers, journalists and educators are Jewish. And Jews have a strong presence in finance, in business and in any number of pursuits that drive the economy.
>
> > So it's about time to turn the tables on this despicable trend and its sustainers. Just about any ethnic group that decides to militate against Jews is guilty of far greater crimes than the Jews, and it is crimes that have been committed much more recently.
>
> > And if I, as a Jewish person, can refrain from hating the German people even though their ancestors were Nazis, then how much more should the people whose ancestors were not mass-murdered by Jewish people refrain from hating the Jews.
>
> No matter the tribe, that’s how all tribes act—they seek to dehumanize
> and eradicate non-members. Why, it’s almost like they act that way
> without even thinking.

Do you know of many Jews who are hypocrites like many white "liberals"
when it comes to civil rights?

> No cultural group on Earth seems capable of existing without
> demonizing and targeting a cultural “other.”

When have you ever seen _any_ Jew demonize any other group? Even the
dog poop stoopid neocons never did that.

There are corrupt Jews who would like to cut my 'nads off but overall,
when it comes to giving it the ol' college try to get along with other
_groups_, the Jews as a group make the effort more than anyone else.

You don't have to be half way open minded to deal with with most
Jews. Just be quarter way open minded and they'll do the rest of the
work, at least when they are young. Maybe when they get old some
start getting a little cynical.


Bret Cahill

[Topaz]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:15:03 -0700 (PDT), ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Read before responding. I have stated repeatedly that, even though I am Jewish and have every reason to hate German people, I do not.

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

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 5, 2012 11:05:17 AM UTC+10, Topaz wrote:
> 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.

Ha ha, then perhaps you can tell me why America, with 6 million Jews, remains the wealthiest country of any size in the world, and why many white countries with no Jews (such as Moldova and Kosovo) are in poverty?

Removing Jews from positions of power was not the only thing that happened in Germany between 1932 and 1934. What also happened was creation of totalitarian state. Soviet Union had full employment as well, and for the exact same reason. They replaced a free market system, which at that time wasn't doing well because of a global Great Depression, with a totalitarian system where everyone had to work or else they got shot.

For that matter, between 1932 and 1934 America also added jobs. Most of these jobs were public works projects. All this says is that government spending can boost the economy, as happened in that time in both America and Soviet Union when neither country was purging Jews.

You people are hilarious. It's quite enjoyable refuting your stupid lies.

Nazism and skinhead encourage two things: stupidity and meanness. And that makes these the worst ideologies out there in what they teach people to be. The result is nowhere close to creating a master race; the result is creating subhuman garbage that is a disgrace to any race or any country of which it is a part.

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 12:38:48 PM UTC+10, Bret Cahill wrote:
> When have you ever seen _any_ Jew demonize any other group? Even the dog poop
> stoopid neocons never did that. There are corrupt Jews who would like to cut
> my 'nads off but overall, when it comes to giving it the ol' college try to get
> along with other _groups_, the Jews as a group make the effort more than anyone
> else. You don't have to be half way open minded to deal with with most Jews.
> Just be quarter way open minded and they'll do the rest of the work, at least
> when they are young. Maybe when they get old some start getting a little
> cynical.

There's a big difference between American Jews and Israeli Jews. The American Jews tend to be more liberal, and the Israeli Jews tend to be more jingoistic. It's an unusual relationship in that there is a continued identification with one another while practicing very different ways of life. Either group would go to bat for the other, but would not want to live like the other. There is not much in common between Benjamin Netanyahu and Adam Sandler, but both identify themselves as Jews.

[Bret Cahill]

Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers wouldn't have much problem
supporting Israel over the despotic societies in the mideast. It's
very difficult to go up against Jefferson as he was correct on most
everything.


Bret Cahill

[Topaz]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT), ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:


>Ha ha, then perhaps you can tell me why America, with 6 million Jews

The wealth is concentrated on the Jews and or other parasites. Most
people barely get by.


Here is a quote from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."


The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes
into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.

The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.

In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.

The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:

"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."

The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:

"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:09:36 AM UTC+10, Topaz wrote:
> The wealth is concentrated on the Jews and or other parasites. Most people
> barely get by.

Um, no. America's GINI index is about average. And it was better in 1970s, when Jews and liberals had more power than they did during and after Reagan.

[Immortalist]

On Oct 3, 6:59 pm, ibsham...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 4, 2012 2:20:43 AM UTC+10, Immortalist wrote:

> > On Oct 2, 5:14 am, ibsham...@gmail.com wrote: > After Mel Gibson's film "Passion," anti-semitism came back under the claim that Jews were responsible for crucifixion of Jesus. Since it was God's will that Jesus die on the cross, the blame for the death of Jesus does not belong with Jews, Romans, humanity or Satan; it belongs with God. But there are even more salient and less ecumenical arguments against this ugly trend. > > In 1930s and 1940s, German people, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, made it their mission to wipe out the Jews. One would think that I, as a Jewish person, would hate German people; but I do not. The reason is that very few of the German people alive now were alive during the Second World War, and they cannot be blamed for the actions of their ancestors. > > Actions which many of them view with shame and embarrassment and do not want to ever repeat again. > > How much more so in case of Jewish people, none of whom were alive 2000 years ago and most of whom are nothing like Caiaphas. > > In matter of crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews were only following the law of Moses. The First Commandment is "thou shalt have no God before me"; and Jesus, in claiming to be God, was seen as being guilty of direct violation of the First Commandment. That - following the law of Moses, and not any kind of "wickedness" - is the reason for the Jews of the time insisting on crucifying Jesus even while letting off a murderer. According to their religious law - the law that the same people who want to kill Jews insist on putting in classrooms and court houses - Jesus committed the worst possible crime; and their insistence on crucifixion of Jesus had nothing to do with Jews being evil but with Jews following the law of Moses. > > Furthermore, if Jews are to be held responsible for the alleged actions of their ancestors 2000 years ago, then English, Spanish, Portuguese, Americans, French, Germans, Japanese and many others all have vastly greater amounts of blood on their hands. This blood includes the over 100 million people in the Americas whom they slaughtered and over 100 million people in Africa whom they enslaved. And it is a stain that was acquired a lot more recently, in the last several centuries, rather than 2000 years ago. > > All of these are far greater sins than anything of which Jews can ever be accused, and all have been committed in much more recent times. > > What's amusing is that the same people who want to kill the Jews are the people who claim to swear by the Western civilization. I got news for these people: Jewish people contributed far more per unit of population to Western Civilization than has any other group. The number of Jewish Noble Prize-winning scientists is comparable to that of Germany and England combined. A vast proportion of great filmmakers, journalists and educators are Jewish. And Jews have a strong presence in finance, in business and in any number of pursuits that drive the economy. > > So it's about time to turn the tables on this despicable trend and its sustainers. Just about any ethnic group that decides to militate against Jews is guilty of far greater crimes than the Jews, and it is crimes that have been committed much more recently. > > And if I, as a Jewish person, can refrain from hating the German people even though their ancestors were Nazis, then how much more should the people whose ancestors were not mass-murdered by Jewish people refrain from hating the Jews. No matter the tribe, that’s how all tribes act—they seek to dehumanize and eradicate non-members. Why, it’s almost like they act that way without even thinking. No cultural group on Earth seems capable of existing without demonizing and targeting a cultural “other.” Whether it’s manifested through blood (race and ethnicity) or water (religion and ideology), tribal behavior seems indelibly identical. Groups can’t seem to exist, much less thrive, without a designated scapegoad scapegoat. Despite all the efforts to “get past” racism and “erace” it, all human social groups seem incapable of getting past the same sort of ingroup/ outgroup, good guys/bad guys, devils/angels binary thinking for which they condemn those pesky, incestuous, snaggletoothed “racists”—who, as luck would have it, always seem to belong to the same race, even though, well, um, race doesn’t exist. If “racism” is merely a dishonestly dirty word to describe white tribalism, it may cut deeper and ultimately be more ineradicable than relative trifles such as ideological and religious schisms. If it’s a natural instinct that can’t be eliminated without ceaseless Maoist- style propaganda, shaming, and coercion, then political measures to counter it must inevitably become totalitarian. I call it “egalitotalitarianism.” If you want to get conspiratorial—or at least acknowledge the fact that “divide and conquer” is the oldest trick in the political playbook —stuffing a nation full of people who are bound to have tribal differences is a good way to keep them at each other’s throats rather than focused on the power mechanisms that control them. I’m a rare bird in that I’m not seduced by any tribal drumbeat, whether ethnic, religious, or ideological. Yet by default, I belong to one of the world’s most persistently persecuted minorities in that I believe human history and social conflict are best viewed through the cold microscope of facts and logic rather than the dim prism of moralistic mystical groupthink. So when I approach the radioactive and comically stigmatized concept of “racism,” my first question isn’t “How do we stop it?”; it’s “Why does it exist in the first place?” Modern social scientists, who are little more than unscientific socialists, variously view racism as a cancer, a sin, an aberration, and a mental illness rather than a natural and ubiquitous phenomenon. Ignoring the fact that every culture throughout human history has been ethnocentric, they frame racism as an exclusive product of white supremacy, European colonialism, and predatory palefaced capitalism. They also shellac it with a thick gloppy glaze of moralistic condemnation, depicting it as the worst and most destructive of all possible human instincts. The psychological establishment is well on its way to depicting “sociobiological” as personality disorders rather than natural drives toward self-preservation, which in a bygone era were seen as the epitome of mental health. And they blame it all on “culture” rather than biology, oblivious to the idea that it is most likely sociobiological forces that dictate and generate culture. Without devolving into the predictable orgy of cuss words and finger- pointing and crudely painted devil puppets and endlessly unspooling bloody-rag hysteria, a simple sociobiological explanation for the tribal instinct that’s known as “racism” would account for its ubiquity. It would also explain its nagging persistence despite the relentless and increasingly iron-fisted attempts to eradicate it. Maybe it’s merely a natural group survival instinct—neither innately “good” or “bad,” which are subjective value judgments—but objectively natural, so maybe you should all calm the hell down.http://takimag.com/article/the_nagging_persistence_of_tribalism_jim_g...http://amagem.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/racism-nepotism-and-tribalism/

>
> Interesting take. I am not aware of Incans, Africans, or Japanese and Hindus for much of their history having an external ethnic scapegoat. That tribalism exists for as long as anyone can trace, is of course known. I think that the people you're talking about want to go above tribalism and toward everyone's identification with humanity and believe that much more things can be accomplished that way along with less destruction and war. It's a noble idea at any rate, especially when it is expressed by the people who otherwise would be beneficiaries of racist attitudes.

Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Three possible outcomes;
1. do nothing and try to hammer and ram the square in the round hole
with disastrous consequences; 2. change the square peg and make it
round and it will fit; 3. change the hole from round to square so the
peg will fit.

What if human nature is like the square peg and culture like the round
hole, both mis-matched to each other?

Your response pointed out that even if there is a conflict between
human nature and culture it would still be a worthy cause to try and
make them fit together somehow.

I agree, should we try and change our nature so that it fits in
culture or should we change culture so that it fits our nature? I
believe it is both but more of changing culture to address our
instincts.

Here is a summary of the mis-match theory;

The human brain, and all of its psychological mechanisms, are adapted
to the environment of evolutionary adaptivenesss and are therefore
biased in favor of viewing and responding to the world as if it were
still the environment of evolutionary adaptivenesss. The psychological
mechanisms we possess in our brain today are still the same
psychological mechanisms that we possessed in the environment of
evolutionary adaptivenesss, just as our hand and pancreas are still
the same as they were 10 000 years ago. It is not impossible to
overcome this bias through conscious effort, but it is often
difficult. This is why we still respond to sweets and fats today as if
we still lived in the environment of evolutionary adaptivenesss where
such high-calorie foods were rare and malnutrition was an imminent
problem for survival, and we have the strong urge to consume a large
quantity of sweets and fats (even though many of us can consciously
overcome the urge). It is my contention that the human brain has
unconscious difficulty comprehending and dealing with entities and
situations that did not exist in the environment of evolutionary
adaptivenesss.

For instance, one of the entities that we know for sure did not exist
in the environment of evolutionary adaptivenesss is television. The
fundamental principles of EP would therefore imply that humans have
difficulty recognizing and dealing with TV. This indeed appears to be
the case. People who watch certain types of TV shows are more
satisfied with their friendships, just like they are if they have more
friends or spend more time socializing with them in real life. It
appears that the human brain has difficulty distinguishing between
real friends and imaginary ones they see on TV, because it did not
exist in the environment of evolutionary adaptivenesss. It is this
fundamental observation, that our brain and its psychological
mechanisms are strongly biased to view and respond to the environment
as if it were still the environment of evolutionary adaptivenesss,
which leads to the Savanna Principle.

Kanazawa (2004a) proposes that the human brain may have difficulty
comprehending entities and situations that did not exist in the
ancestral environment, and, as one empirical demonstration of this
Savanna Principle, Kanazawa (2002) shows that people who watch certain
types of TV shows are more satisfied with their friendships,
suggesting that they may have difficulty distinguishing TV characters
from real friends. In an entirely different line of research, Kanazawa
(2004b) advances an evolutionary psychological theory of the evolution
of general intelligence, which proposes that general intelligence
evolved in order to handle evolutionarily-novel problems. The logical
convergence of these two separate lines of research leads to the
prediction that the human difficulty in dealing with evolutionarily-
novel stimuli interacts with general intelligence, such that the
Savanna Principle holds stronger among the less intelligent than among
the more intelligent. Further analyses of the U.S. General Social
Survey demonstrate that less intelligent men and women may have
greater difficulty separating TV characters from their real friends
than more intelligent men and women.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/JCEP2006.pdf
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/MDE2004.pdf

My Conclusion - A persistent illusion: some parts of our brains know
its just a movie or tv but other parts insist we are in the same room
with the people on the media. Same with looking at a picture of people
some parts of the brain know its a picture but other parts insist the
people are there with us since we didn't evolve are pictures, tvs or
movies and most other artifacts of technological society.

The persistent illusion is a choice our nature makes between two sets
of interpretations of sense data. Someone draws a stairway and asks
you to imagine it is upside down. It works until you stop
concentrating and then instincts force the. choice of the right side
up interpretation. If we don't attend to our instincts they will
usually pull us in particular directions.

Here is the stairway illusion. Look at it and force the upside down
version by blurring vision. Once produced watch it snap back the
"right" way once you stop concentrating.

http://www.officiallybored.net/userimages/3stairs.jpg

Now to the point of our drive to divide the world into us vs them;

It is agreed in social psychology that we are driven to divide into
groups and that the ingroup members are treated like humans and the
outgroup or other group members are sub human and have less rights and
even less identity. As the theory stands we are born with neural
structures that make us bigots and the environment imprints and
adjusts the strength of this perverted drive in us.

For instance experiments in social psychology;

(1) A group of bozos on a city street agree to join a social
experiment.

(2) Subjects (bozos) are divided into groups on basis of trivial
criteria like flipping a coin to deterimine if one is in Group X or
Group Y.

(3) Subjects do not interact, either within or between groups.

(4) Members of own group and other group remain anonymous.

(5) Subjects are then asked to allot money to two other subjects,
designated only by code number and group membership (X or Y). Subjects
own outcomes will not be affected by their allocation decisions.

(6) Despite minimal nature of these groups, subjects allocations
consistently favored other members of their own arbitrarily designated
groups, at the expense of members of the recently typed "outgroups".

[Tajfel] argues that the reason for this allocation strategy is to
create a differentiation between the groups which permits their group
membership to enhance their social identity.

(modified comedy version of the experiments below)
------------------------------------------------
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Unreflected Ingroup Favoritism

One who reflects does not discriminate?: On the role of unreflected
cognitive processes for the occurrence of ingroup favoritism between
artificial groups; A categorization of individuals in two groups based
on completely trivial criteria like flipping a coin to determine which
group one is assigned (Group X or Group Y), can be sufficient to cause
mutual preferences for one's own group.

Social identity theory assumes a fundamental striving towards a
positive distinction of one's own group from other groups. The
tendency to a preference for one's own group is clearly reduced in a
situation involving intergroup judgments on negative comparison
dimensions or distribution decisions on negative stimuli (burdens,
aversive stimuli), in comparison to those in the positive realm.

These basic judgment processes may be the fundamental determining
factors of and conditions for social discrimination. Of some influence
may be the role which evaluations of oneself play for the positive
evaluation of minimal social groups. It is assumed that an unreflected
cognitive process is critical for this, in the course of which, as a
rule, the positive self-image is transferred to the new ingroup. Due
to the lesser degree of similarity to oneself, an outgroup cannot
benefit from such a generalization process.

Correspondingly, a positive distinctiveness of one's own group can
result solely from the self-ingroup relation, independent of an
ingroup-outgroup comparison. There is a generalized positive attitude
to the ingroup, and demonstrating the role of a low degree of
reflection for the occurrence of favoritism in minimal intergroup
situations and considerations of outgroups.

The randomly assigned individuals generally act as if those who share
their meaningless label are their good friends or close kin. Subjects
indicate that they like those who share their label. They rate others
who share their label as likely to have a more pleasant personality
and to have produced better output than outgroup members. Most
strikingly, subjects allocate more money and rewards to those who
share their labels.

In other related social experiments at political rallies it has been
noted that researchers faking injuries, were helped more or less
depending on whether their protest sign, and slogans supported or went
against those around them who could help.

The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Is is wrong to look at things in this much detail? People been telling
me that in here for a decade.

[Topaz]

Um, no. Other countries are also dominated by Jewish parasites. All
countries would be far better off without them.


To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.

And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more loans,
and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't make
their payment he takes their entire farm or business.

That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and make their own money. To make the initial
supply of money they would simply print $100 for each of them. This
money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest. But there is a
money supply on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more
cars and houses are built, from time to time more money would need to
be created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers can do this on his own. It is decided and
done at a town meeting.

A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting. The government should create money and not
private bankers. The government should be for the people.

Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 8:40:09 PM UTC+11, Topaz wrote:
> Um, no. Other countries are also dominated by Jewish parasites. All countries
> would be far better off without them.

How can the countries, such as Poland, that have maybe 800 Jews, be dominated by them?

Most European countries - both the East and the West - do not have many Jews at all, and for an obvious reason.

To claim that they are dominated by Jews is ridiculous.

[Doug Freyburger]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers wouldn't have much problem
> supporting Israel over the despotic societies in the mideast.

That's my reason. I'm not a member of any religion in the JCSIMR family
so I look for which country has the most freedom in every day life,
which country has at least theoretical freedom of religion, which
countries follow rules that tell them it's okay to kill me because I
don't practice their religion. The decision of who to support becomes
quite simple. How much aid to favor is a more difficult balance but
because one side has rules that say it's okay to kill me because I don't
practice their religion I'm always tempted to favor a lot of aid.

> It's
> very difficult to go up against Jefferson as he was correct on most
> everything.

On the old TV show "The West Wing" there was an episode when a lot of
medical experts gathered for dinner. The President said "There is not
been so great a meeting of minds in the White House since Thomas
Jeffersion dined here alone".

Part of why I very often vote Libertarian. I'm a bit more centrist in
politics than most registered Libertarians but their stance does read
like a collection of jefferson quotes. Because that's what it is.

[Bret Cahill]

George III was basically a private sector individualist landlord
trying to collect rent and have everyone respect his private property
rights.

Jefferson organized a collective to deliver the greatest blow to the
private sector in history. Power to tax as well as George IIIrd's
land went from a private sector individualist to elective gummint.
The Tories, the "libertarians" of that day fled the U.S.

Does that sound libertarian?

Jefferson was always quite open that "society has rights over the
individual" and that gummint could take fallow land from individualist
landlords and turn it over to the unemployed.

Does that sound libertarian?

Jefferson, Madison and Adams all believed the "celebrated Montesquieu"
was the greatest thinker since the ancient Greeks but Montesquieu
wrote that freedom and taxation were entirely correlative and that
progressive taxation was "fair thought not proportionable."

Does that sound libertarian?

Jefferson supported Thomas Paine who believed that everyone over 50
should get a guaranteed income from gummint.

Does that sound libertarian?

Jefferson supported the French Revolution including the execution of
private sector landlords.

Does that sound libertarian?

"Libertarians" are against _elective_ gummint. Jefferson was _for_
elective gummint because he believed the only alternative to elective
gummint is despotic gummint.

Does that sound libertarian?

The only way "libertarians" can claim Jefferson as one of their own is
to simply not read or think critically about what J. actually said or
did.

Libertarians are too lazy to do the hard work of thinking. Instead
they fall for every bottom fishing deception/scam/propaganda put out
by the 0.01%.

The term "rugged individualist" never appeared until the robber barons
took over the media, Hollywood, Congress, the judiciary and everything
else.

The term "private sector" didn't appear until after WWII when
Americans, drunk with military glory, first started to really wander
away from reality.

Anyone who has been brainwashed by the 0.01% will never be free.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> America's GINI index is about average. And it was better in 1970s, when Jews > and liberals had more power than they did during and after Reagan.

A lot of that was caused by the end of "Russia's Century" in the late
1970s. Russian centralization of power had an "inductive" effect
centralizing power in the U. S. The 20th Century might not have been
the most democratic of times but the media and other national power
structures seemed to have had some sense of duty to the people and the
nation and it more or less seemed to work.

They even made good use of their time with civil rights legislation
that might have been difficult to pass with something more in the
direction of majority rule so there was a silver lining in there
somewhere.

After the collapse of the USSR all that came to an end, and, as one
Russian pointed out in the 1980s, it would bring the American system
to an end as well. The tactic of burning Moscow to defeat invaders
seems to be work politically as well as militarily.

The legacy media now have only one duty: to themselves and their
0.01% sponsors. $20 trillion of debt? Gush hype culture wars.
Disparty of wealth increasing to the point life spans dropping at
unprecedented rates? Jerry Springerize the political debate.

Americans, even American historians, don't have a clue about previous
U. S. political history so getting back to Jefferson would be
difficult even if the legacy media wasn't there to undermine every
effort at real change.

Competition with the internet is forcing the media to try anything.
Ordinarily this might be a driver of useful innovation but the only
thing they can really do is start writing for HuffPo and accelerate
the end of the legacy media.

Sooner or later there will be an "inflection" to borrow a word from
the former CEO of Intel. The ignorant confused GOP voting poor will
be out numbered by the recently middle class.

On top of that the John Steinbeck quote on America's poor thinking
that they have a chance to get rich may no longer be valid. The
internet makes exposing the odds so easy and so graphic all but the
dullest will understand that they have a better chance of winning the
lottery than getting rich quick with the Gipper.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > Um, no. Other countries are also dominated by Jewish parasites. All countries
> > would be far better off without them.
>
> How can the countries, such as Poland, that have maybe 800 Jews, be dominated by them?

Have you not heard? Jews can do _anything_!

Someone needs to point out that if the Jews were really as capable as
their enemies claim, then they are more powerful than God Himself and
any opposition is futile. Just do what Hitler finally did and give
up. Commit suicide.


Bret Cahill

[Dare]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 11:32:10 AM UTC-4, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> The legacy media now have only one duty: to themselves and their
>
> 0.01% sponsors. $20 trillion of debt? Gush hype culture wars.
>
> Disparty of wealth increasing to the point life spans dropping at
>
> unprecedented rates? Jerry Springerize the political debate.
>
>
>
> Americans, even American historians, don't have a clue about previous
>
> U. S. political history so getting back to Jefferson would be
>
> difficult even if the legacy media wasn't there to undermine every
>
> effort at real change.
>
>
>
> Competition with the internet is forcing the media to try anything.
>
> Ordinarily this might be a driver of useful innovation but the only
>
> thing they can really do is start writing for HuffPo and accelerate
>
> the end of the legacy media.
>
>
>
> Sooner or later there will be an "inflection" to borrow a word from
>
> the former CEO of Intel. The ignorant confused GOP voting poor will
>
> be out numbered by the recently middle class.
>
>
>
> On top of that the John Steinbeck quote on America's poor thinking
>
> that they have a chance to get rich may no longer be valid. The
>
> internet makes exposing the odds so easy and so graphic all but the
>
> dullest will understand that they have a better chance of winning the
>
> lottery than getting rich quick with the Gipper.

It's becoming so obvious, there's even a bumper sticker:
"Corporate Media: Weapons of Mass Distraction"

[Topaz]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:38:27 -0700 (PDT), ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:


>
>How can the countries, such as Poland, that have maybe 800 Jews, be dominated by them?

[Topaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bret Cahill]

> Obviously losing the war didn't prove they were wrong. It only proved
> they were outnumbered.

So the nazis were correct about being out numbered or being out
numbered making a difference?

Or were they correct to invade countries when they knew they were out
numbered?

Or were they right to assume their overall international approval
rating would improve if they invaded countries?

[Bret Cahill]

> And if I, as a Jewish person, can refrain from hating the German people even though their ancestors were Nazis, then how much more should the people whose ancestors were not mass-murdered by Jewish people refrain from hating the Jews.

In a lot of ways today Germany is a model liberal nation, i.e., green
energy, strong unions / social safety net, high productivity and a
general prosperity. But as recently as last year it was "announced"
by some commentator that multi culturalism was a complete failure in
Germany. Germans are no longer invading countries and ethnic
cleansing but that doesn't mean it is like California.

There are so many tera scams in the U. S., however, it's hard to spend
much time dissing other countries too much, especially when I haven't
traveled all that much. There are bigger fish to fry and lower
hanging fruit, [more hackneyed expressions], _right here at home_.


Bret Cahill


Unlike France and England Germany was never able to "digest its
quantum of Jews."

-- Nietzsche 1870s

[Doug Freyburger]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit more centrist in
>> politics than most registered Libertarians but their stance does read
>> like a collection of jefferson quotes.  Because that's what it is.
>
> George III was basically a private sector individualist landlord
> trying to collect rent and have everyone respect his private property
> rights.

Wow. You're playing a game that you can't tell a government from a
private individual. Quite a transparent straw man you've got there.

> Jefferson organized a collective to deliver the greatest blow to the
> private sector in history. Power to tax as well as George IIIrd's
> land went from a private sector individualist to elective gummint.
> The Tories, the "libertarians" of that day fled the U.S.
>
> Does that sound libertarian?

So you can't tell the libertarian stance from the anarchist stance and
you're playing straw man games. Pretty hilarious.

> Jefferson was always quite open that "society has rights over the
> individual" and that gummint could take fallow land from individualist
> landlords and turn it over to the unemployed.
>
> Does that sound libertarian?

Yes because there's a difference between libertarian and anarchist. I
won't repsond point by point on the rest because it's more of the same
straw man nonsense about ignoring what the libertarian stance is and
arguing as if it were the anarchist stance plus mixing in not being able
to tell who's government and who's private.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> I'm a bit more centrist in
> >> politics than most registered Libertarians but their stance does read
> >> like a collection of jefferson quotes. Because that's what it is.
>
> > George III was basically a private sector individualist landlord
> > trying to collect rent and have everyone respect his private property
> > rights.
>
> Wow.  You're playing a game that you can't tell a government from a
> private individual.

What's the difference between rent and taxes?

Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.

. . . .

> > Jefferson organized a collective to deliver the greatest blow to the
> > private sector in history.  Power to tax as well as George IIIrd's
> > land went from a private sector individualist to elective gummint.
> > The Tories, the "libertarians" of that day fled the U.S.
>
> > Does that sound libertarian?

> So you can't tell the libertarian stance from the anarchist stance and
> you're playing straw man games.

Well?

Don't keep everyone sitting on the edge of his chair.

What's the difference?


Bret Cahill

[Topaz]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:35:10 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>So the nazis were correct about being out numbered or being out
>numbered making a difference?

It's bad that they were so outnumbered. Now the world is corrupt.

>
>Or were they correct to invade countries when they knew they were out
>numbered?

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.

>
>Or were they right to assume their overall international approval
>rating would improve if they invaded countries?

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

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

[Topaz]

Portugal was once a great nation. It might have been the greatest
nation on earth at one time. But now it is almost like a third world
country. What happened? Race-mixing is what happened. They let a lot
of Black people in and of course the result was racial inter-marriage.
Now the Portuguese people are not as White as they were. We need to
preserve the White race. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developments and discoveries, are the products of the
creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
civilization is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish,
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
grave."

"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on
the blood."

"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science
and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact
fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded
a superior type of humanity"

"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
native Japanese culture, although this characterizes the external
features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the
real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous
scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is
to say, of Aryan peoples."
"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a
people is only an effect of the change that had modified its racial
substance."

"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and Negroid all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized
future for our humanity would be lost forever."

"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."

"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if
the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should
disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual
needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear."

"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded as
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined
by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only
by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing
this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer
insight"

"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the
State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no
more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquility, so that
everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high
mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity
which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."

[Bret Cahill]

> >So the nazis were correct about being out numbered or being out
> >numbered making a difference?
>
> It's bad that they were so outnumbered.

Here, try again:

Do you think the nazis got bad census data on the USSR?

Or do you think they had good numbers on population but incorrectly
thought that "one German tank could beat 10 Russian tanks?"

[Topaz]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Here, try again:
>
>Do you think the nazis got bad census data on the USSR?

Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html

.. .. Suvorov assembles impressive evidence to show that Stalin was
preparing to attack Germany in 1941. Suvorov writes that on June 13,
1941, Stalin secretly began "the biggest troop movement in the history
of civilization," transferring enormous military forces to the
Soviet-German frontier. The Soviet troops were deployed there not for
defense, but in preparation for a surprise invasion. "It seems
certain," writes Suvorov, "that the Soviet concentration on the
frontier was due to be completed by July 10. Thus, the German blow
which fell just 19 days earlier found the Red Army in the most
unfavorable situation -- in railway waggons."

The Nazis and Hitler Saved Us
The really bad guys in World War 2 were the western allies, especially
the Americans. The monumental blindness and stupidity, unmatched
barbarism and sadism of America and Britain nearly brought a new Dark
Age upon a world dominated, not by them, but by the Soviet Union and
communism, Although the Nazis and fascists lost the war-their heroic
struggle with hardly any resources against overwhelming odds allowed
western civilization to survive. After 1945, it was the atomic bomb,
far above and beyond everything else, which allowed the west to
survive, even to this day-but before that, it was ADOLF HITLER who
saved us. For that he deserves our eternal gratitude and admiration.
It was HITLER who built and inspired the small coalition of the
willing to fight the good war against communism. By launching the
attack on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 with only conventional
weapons, HITLER and Germany, and Germany's allies pre-empted STALIN's
well-prepared and massive attack to the west, and postponed a complete
Soviet victory long enough for the US and Britain to finally come to
their senses. The US and Britain eventually took up essentially the
same struggle with nuclear weapons, or at least the threat of nuclear
weapons, even when that meant possible destruction of all life on the
planet.
Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com

>
>Or do you think they had good numbers on population but incorrectly
>thought that "one German tank could beat 10 Russian tanks?"
>
>

[Bret Cahill]

> >Here, try again:
>
> >Do you think the nazis got bad census data on the USSR?
>
> Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack

So you admit racially inferior nazis just weren't smart enough to stay
out of the USSR?

[Topaz]

[Bret Cahill]

[Topaz]

Stalin Prepared for Summer 1941 Attack