HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST - Modern Leftism - Its similarities to Hitler and his "highly respected (policies ) by many of the Muslims of his day"
CB
Modern Leftism
Before we answer that question, however, let us look at what the Left and
Right in politics consist of at present. Consider this description by Edward
Feser of someone who would have been an ideal Presidential candidate for the
modern-day U.S. Democratic party:
He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded
young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of
outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his
country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and
propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and
architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he
regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend "lived
together" for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and
collaborators, and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of
his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have
been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of
contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking,
regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat
it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws;
and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.
He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal
and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In
this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by
President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic
decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government
planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that
avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former
communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish
individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to
replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: "As Christ proclaimed 'love one
another'," he said, "so our call -- 'people's community,' 'public need
before private greed,' 'communally-minded social consciousness' -- rings
out.! This call will echo throughout the world!"
The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a
Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational
superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and
his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and
his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a
choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the
best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional
other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the
requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state.
They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have
to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview
many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people.
For he and his associates believed strongly that a people's ethnic and
racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural
relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in
some sense depends on one's ethnic worldview, and especially on what best
promotes the well-being of one's ethnic group
There is surely no doubt that the man Feser described is in fact a
mainstream Leftist by current standards. But who is the man concerned? It is
a historically accurate description of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was not only a
socialist in his own day but he would even be a mainstream socialist in most
ways today. Feser does not mention Hitler's antisemitism above, of course,
but that too seems once again to have become mainstream among the
Western-world Left in the early years of the 21st century.
...
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1143131/posts
--
CB
"The world is a dangerous place to live-not because of the people who are
evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -Albert
Einstein
Woodsman
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:46ec9e0f$0$18932$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> ...
>
> Modern Leftism
Hitler and Prescott Bush were conservaloonz.
3779 Dead
I saw this, and thought, oh, hell, another Free Republic foamer. Then
I saw the "M.A.;Ph.D." and thought, not in political science he isn't.
And, sure enough, he's an old Ozzie crackpot with his degrees in Psych
and Behavioral Science.
Just another right winger trying to foist fascism's biggest disaster
off on the other side.
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Dr. Barry Worthington
> ...
>
> Modern Leftism
>
> Before we answer that question, however, let us look at what the Left and
> Right in politics consist of at present. Consider this description by Edward
> Feser of someone who would have been an ideal Presidential candidate for the
> modern-day U.S. Democratic party:
>
> He had been something of a bohemian in his youth,
If you think that 'bohemian' and 'tramp' mean the same thing...
>and always regarded
> young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of
> outmoded prejudices.
Such as anti-semitism?
>And he was widely admired by the young people of his
> country,
All of them?
>many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and
> propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and
> architecture,
Except Jazz, abstract art, impressionism, Jewish composers etc...
>and was even something of a painter.
Er...sort of...
>He rejected what he
> regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups,
Except in his attitude to women, dress, chintz furnishings, tea
parties, etc. etc.
>and he and his girlfriend "lived
> together" for years.
Largely in secret.
> He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and
> collaborators,
Yes...he had them shot in the 'night of the long knives'.....
>and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of
> his business;
Except when he had a pink triangle stuck on them in the concentration
camp...
>some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have
> been homosexual or bisexual.
Which scholars? This is the first time I have heard this suggested.
>He was ahead of his time where a number of
> contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking,
> regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat
> it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws;
> and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.
Whether they wanted it or not....
(Garbage snipped)
Dear God....you need your head feeling....
Dr. Barry Worthington
jetgraphics
> Hitler was, according to ALL historians, economists,
> social Scientists, Political Scientists, CONSERVATIVE
> and RIGHTWING
>
> Nazism IS considered a POLITICAL rightwing
> ideology---as is fascism
>
> "Socialist" in the political title is no more operative
> than "democratic" in "the German Democratic
> Republic"---which we know as a totaltarian rightwing
> Regime.
>
> Stupid fuck
JG: Since the propaganda ministry has successfully reprogrammed you
for "New Speak", facts should not sway you from your opinions.
But let me refresh the dialog with some reference material.
>From Webster's Dictionary:
FASCISM - any political or social ideology of the extreme right which
relies on a combination of pseudo-religious attitudes and the brutal
use of force for getting and keeping power.
The major characteristics of "Fascism" :
[] EXTREME RIGHT
[] PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS
[] BRUTAL
Let's consider the wing with which people are associated with, when
speaking of political partisanship.
LEFT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that
holds the most left or radical views. Webster's Dictionary
RIGHT WING - the section of a political party, government or group
that holding the views of the Right. Webster's Dictionary
THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates
itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative
bodies is
seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer. Webster's
Dictionary
THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most
from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies
is seated
traditionally to the left of the presiding officer. Webster's
Dictionary
Is that clear?
Left = opposition to traditional authority
Right = support of traditional authority
True "Fascism" would have to be in support of "traditional" authority,
using brutality and pseudo-religious behavior.
Now, let's ask the hypothetical historian to identify which
"traditional authority" that Hitler (and his fellow socialist
Mussolini, who was an official party functionary in the Socialist
Party, as well as editor of the Socialist newspaper
"Avanti!" ('Forward')) were in support of?
(Silence)
Hitler was LEFT WING, thus the exact opposite of FASCISM.
The National Socialist German Workers Party was socialist, not right
wing. Was someone lying when the socialists (*left wingers) claimed to
be fascist right wingers?
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It
is based upon the
belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are
equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can
provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
Hitler did endeavor to have the STATE take over ownership of Germany,
lock, stock and barrel. That is NOT right wing totalitarianism. It is
plain old SOCIALIST totalitarianism. The all powerful state, under the
control of the Fuhrer, was entirely left wing.
To further clarify the situation, one must remember that the U.S.A.
became a socialist state in 1935, with the enactment of the Social
Security Act of 1935. Most Americans, including "historians,
economists, social Scientists, Political Scientists" don't know that
America's socialism is 100% voluntary. There is no law compelling
participation, nor is there any law punishing one for not
participating. You can contact the Administrator of Social Security in
Baltimore, Maryland, and ask if one must enroll in their program in
order to work in the U.S.A. Their generic response is : the only
reason to enroll is to participate in their entitlement program. If
you contact the Congressional Research Service, they will inform you
that "entitlements" are synonymous with "gifts". Ergo, enumerated
socialists are eligible for "gifts" from the public treasury.
Unfortunately, accepting charity from the public treasury has dire
consequences. For further research, I suggest you examine pre-1935
court cites and laws regarding the harsh treatment meted out to
paupers at law.
This merely illustrates that "the system" of worldwide socialist
revolution has carefully reprogrammed us to be oblivious to the
changes going on around us. So perhaps you are a victim of pervasive
indoctrination to blame "right wing Fascism" for the abuses of "left
wing Socialism."
But I will leave you with a snippet from the Communist manifesto, to
remind you of the difference between "traditional authority" and its
vicious enemy.
>From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single sentence: Abolition of private property."
FYI - the LEGAL definition for private property is not synonymous with
"real estate".
WHAT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY?
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is
such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he
has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed
and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to
another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
Private property is that which is owned ABSOLUTELY by an individual.
Things like houses, lands, and chattels (bodies, like your self).
If you absolutely own yourself, you cannot be taken for public use
without just compensation.
(See 5th amendment regarding protection for private property)
WHAT IS NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY?
"REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property"
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1263
"REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments;
which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
"ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a
person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands,
tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has
therein."
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547
INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage
of accruing from anything ; any right in the
nature of property, but LESS THAN TITLE.
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.812
TITLE - "The formal right of ownership of property..."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1485
["lands, tenements, heriditaments" = real property = real estate =
estate held by an interest - less than title!]
WHY IS ESTATE DIFFERENT FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY?
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or
qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person
has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when
it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is
deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
"TITLE - ... a short hand term used to denote the facts which, if
proved, will enable a plaintiff to recover possession or a defendant
to retain possession of a thing." Cribbet, Principles of the Law of
Property 15 (1962)"
- - - Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 210
[Note, since interest is less than title, an interest in property does
not support absolute possession of that property.]
WHAT TYPE OF PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TAX?
PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county,
on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a
specified date."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
[Note: The government can only tax estate, not private property.]
If you thought that "all land" is real estate, this should convince
you otherwise:
LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another
thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
Land can be private property (owned absolutely) or it can be estate
(temporarily held with an interest).
ENEMIES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It
is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of
the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which
the community can provide.
WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production,
distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with
wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need',
each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
Frankly, both "wings" in American politics are LEFTIST. No partisan
political party will ever champion anti-socialism, for without the
millions of "volunteers", the federal State would lose 99.3% of its
power over people and their property.
Oh really?
Prove it, says the readership.
WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY?
DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect
control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and
possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over
disposition. -Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a
territory.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486
SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act
accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme
authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant
supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
WHO IS SOVEREIGN?
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or
expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 GA at 93.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign,
are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by
his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they
are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
(Coincidentally, whenever the Constitution refers to "rights and
powers" it uses the term "people". When it refers to "privileges and
immunities" it refers to citizens)
WHO ARE NOT SOVEREIGN?
"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in
their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves
to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare
and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by
his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as
citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound
to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries
enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the
term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted
from the change in government."
14 Corpus Juris Secundum Sec. 4
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside."
[14th Amendment, Section 1. U.S. Constitution]
[*Note that the amendment leads one to believe that the term "United
States" means the "United States of America".]
According to the Articles of Confederation, 1777
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States
of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not
by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in
Congress assembled.
U.S.A. = union of states united (currently 50)
U.S. = Congress (federal government)
WHAT PROVES THAT THERE ARE AMERICANS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS?
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse
among the people of the different states in this union, the FREE
INHABITANTS of each of these states, ... shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several
states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Coincidentally, the SS-5 Form that one uses to apply for an account
and number with national socialism (social security) is limited to
U.S. citizens and U.S. residents. American nationals, free
inhabitants, domiciled in the U.S.A. are ineligible to participate.
So, you can choose to remain "their" peon, subject, citizen, or you
can seek to change your status at law to that of a sovereign.
But don't be surprised at that blank stares from the brainwashed
masses, intoxicated with socialist dogma. For all practical purposes,
the masses are illiterate and ignorant (as I was for the first 30+
years of my life).
But feel free to prove me wrong - just visit your nearest county
courthouse law library and read the law yourself. There's no "secret
conspiracy" - it's all out in the open. However, if you fail to do the
research, don't blame the messenger when you disagree with the facts.
Here's your first assignment - look up the LEGAL Definitions for the
following pairs. (some of these are already in this posting)
national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. civil liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership
U.S.A. v. U.S.
But if you want to know how far back the "con" was, here's something
to shake your preconceived notions.
The Preamble to the U.S. constitution starts out with "We, the People
of the United States....".
Everyone assumes that means, "the people", all of us.
WRONG!
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the
United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the
government of
the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters
204, (1822).
Does that sound like the "United States" is something distinct from
the States?
According to the Articles of Confederation, 1777
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States
of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not
by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in
Congress assembled.
U.S.A. = union of states united (currently 50)
U.S. = Congress (federal government)
Thus we can substitute "Congress" for the term "United States" in the
Preamble. Remember, the Constitution was authored while under the
Articles of Confederation, and definition of terms are the meat and
drink of lawyers.
And to top it all off, let us see if the Constitution is "ours" or
"theirs".
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in
Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The
Constitution, it is true, is a
compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to
it. ...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14
Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
Get it, yet?
The "people of Congress" created the Constitution for themselves and
their posterity, and not for the private people (sovereigns).
The CONstitution is a compact between the States united and the United
States, in Congress assembled.
We, the little people, were never part of the compact. When that sinks
in, you'll begin to distrust "ALL historians, economists,
social Scientists, Political Scientists..."
Furthermore, the "United States" is a foreign corporation, whose
jurisdiction is limited in venue.
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign
corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign
Corporations, Sections 883,884
If all citizens are subjects, yet people are sovereign, but "all
people born or naturalized in the United States" are U.S. citizens
(14th amendment), how did we all become citizens of a foreign
corporation if we're born in a state?
WHO ARE THE SOVEREIGNS that the American government allegedly serves?
Woodsman
"jetgraphics" <jetgr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189949645.8...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Another GOP history revisionist. By ALL accounts Bush & Hitler are one and
the same.
When Dogs Run Free
C...@PrayForMe.com says...
> HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
Just like...
WAR = PEACE
FREEDOM = SLAVERY
IGNORANCE = STRENGTH
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Sep 16, 1:04 am, Cl...@Knicklas.com wrote:
>
> > Hitler was, according to ALL historians, economists,
> > social Scientists, Political Scientists, CONSERVATIVE
> > and RIGHTWING
>
> > Nazism IS considered a POLITICAL rightwing
> > ideology---as is fascism
>
> > "Socialist" in the political title is no more operative
> > than "democratic" in "the German Democratic
> > Republic"---which we know as a totaltarian rightwing
> > Regime.
>
> > Stupid fuck
>
> JG: Since the propaganda ministry has successfully reprogrammed you
> for "New Speak", facts should not sway you from your opinions.
>
> But let me refresh the dialog with some reference material.
>
> >From Webster's Dictionary:
Why? What makes you think that a dictionary can define political terms
(which tend to change their meaning over the yesrs) or complex
abstract ideas?
>
> FASCISM - any political or social ideology of the extreme right
Assuming that we can all gree what THAT means...
>which
> relies on a combination of pseudo-religious attitudes
Why pseudo-religious?
>and the brutal
> use of force for getting and keeping power.
>
> The major characteristics of "Fascism" :
> [] EXTREME RIGHT
> [] PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS
> [] BRUTAL
I don't know of any reputable historian or political scientist who
would agree with that definition.
>
> Let's consider the wing with which people are associated with, when
> speaking of political partisanship.
You mean that any criticism of this daft posting has to be 'left'
inspired?
>
> LEFT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that
> holds the most left or radical views. Webster's Dictionary
>
> RIGHT WING - the section of a political party, government or group
> that holding the views of the Right. Webster's Dictionary
Well....duh! (As you quaint colonials say.)
> THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates
> itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative
> bodies is
> seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer. Webster's
> Dictionary
That's a rather conventional definition confined to the democratic
right in Europe and America....it doesn't extent to the totalitarian
or corporate right....
>
> THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most
> from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies
> is seated
> traditionally to the left of the presiding officer. Webster's
> Dictionary
That largely relates to Social Democrats. It does not extend to
revolutionary marxists and marxist-leninists.
> Is that clear?
> Left = opposition to traditional authority
> Right = support of traditional authority
No it isn't clear, since it does not comprehend fascism. Fascism is
not, repeat not, a democratic political group.
>
> True "Fascism" would have to be in support of "traditional" authority,
> using brutality and pseudo-religious behavior.
Well no, since most historians and political scientists do not accept
your definition.
>
> Now, let's ask the hypothetical historian to identify which
> "traditional authority" that Hitler (and his fellow socialist
> Mussolini, who was an official party functionary in the Socialist
> Party, as well as editor of the Socialist newspaper
> "Avanti!" ('Forward')) were in support of?
>
> (Silence)
Well, I could refer you to the conservative aristotelian view of
society, and its later interpreters, chiefly Aquinas, Herder, and
Hegel. That was an important influence upon Hitler and Mussolini....as
well as the more clerical fascists, such as Franco and Dolfuss.
>
> Hitler was LEFT WING, thus the exact opposite of FASCISM.
Hitler was a fascist, and therfore right wing...
> The National Socialist German Workers Party was socialist, not right
> wing. Was someone lying when the socialists (*left wingers) claimed to
> be fascist right wingers?
Yes. And it was not a socialist claiming that. It was Goebbels.
>
> SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
> ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It
> is based upon the
> belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are
> equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can
> provide.
> --- Webster's dictionary
Actually, that isn't a definition of socialism. It's certanly not one
that Marx would recognise.
>
> Hitler did endeavor to have the STATE take over ownership of Germany,
> lock, stock and barrel. That is NOT right wing totalitarianism. It is
> plain old SOCIALIST totalitarianism. The all powerful state, under the
> control of the Fuhrer, was entirely left wing.
But the German economy remained a capitalist one. There was no attempt
to create a war economy until after 1942. I would suggest that you
read some decent history books.
>
> To further clarify the situation, one must remember that the U.S.A.
> became a socialist state in 1935, with the enactment of the Social
> Security Act of 1935.
Sorry.....I've suddenly realised that you may be a nutter....
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "The ...
>
> read more »
Sid9
CB succeeded in changing
the subject away from bush,jr
and his failed war and Republican
administration.
zzpat
> ...
>
> Modern Leftism
>
A liberal believes in the basic concept that individual rights are
supreme. Therefore, it's impossible for a liberal to be a fascist.
However, look at illegal wiretapping, torture, violations of the rules
of war, violations of the Geneva Conventions etc. All this and more
happened under conservatism. If Hitler were alive today he'd be happy
knowing the GOP emulates his use of propaganda, hate, patriotism,
nationalism and lawlessness.
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com
Impeach Search Engine
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
George Grapman
3783 Dead
Most would quarral only with it's lack of completeness. "Right"
usually means conservative or reactionary, and fascism is marked by
extreme reactionaryism, a longing to return to "good old days" and a
purging of society of perceived problem groups, such as intellectuals
or unionists.
"Pseudo-religious" refers to the blatent appeals to religion such
political groups make. Since any politician who uses religion is
almost certainly not religious, "pseudo-religious" works in that
context.
Brutal? That one's easy. Name a fascist regime that wasn't brutal.
Topaz
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Topaz
Here are parts of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg in 1934. The ending of this speech is in the film Triumph of
the Will.
"It is difficult to define the concept of propaganda thoroughly and
precisely. This is especially true since in past decades it was
subject to unfavorable definitions, particularly as the enemy defined
it with regards to us Germans. First, then, we must defend it. Those
abroad sometimes claim that in the past we Germans were particularly
good in this area, but that unfortunately is not consistent with the
facts. We learned this all too clearly during the World War. While the
enemy states produced unprecedented atrocity propaganda aimed at
Germany throughout the whole world, we did nothing and were completely
defenseless against it. Only when enemy foreign propaganda had nearly
won over the greater part of the neutral states did the German
government begin to sense the enormous power of propaganda. It was too
late. Just as we were militarily and economically unprepared for the
war, so too with propaganda. We lost the war in this area more than in
any other.
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war
was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even
today large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical
characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing
the facts and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that
were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about
German soldiers chopping off children's hands and crucifying women to
realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of
calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense.
The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation,
particularly as the result of political practice in Germany.
Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern
state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the
subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not
only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand
that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes
everything that helps the people to realize this.
Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is
aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people
because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the
highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts
in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its
foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand,
rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a
question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach,
evidence and language.
Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to
an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without
internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a
superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it
wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the
appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such
is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the the
goals it seeks."
"Each propaganda had a direction. The quality of this direction
determines whether propaganda has a positive or negative effect. Good
propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no
reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people
cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the
truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A
propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be
successful in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along
that serves a good cause. But propaganda is still necessary if a good
cause is to succeed. A good idea does not win simply because it is
good. It must be presented properly if it is to win. But a good idea
is itself the best propaganda. Such propaganda is successful without
being obnoxious. It depends on its nature, not its methods. It works
without being noticed. Its goals are inherent in its nature. Since it
is almost invisible, it is effective and powerful. A good cause will
lose to a bad one if it depends only on its rightness, while the other
side uses the methods of influencing the masses. We are for example
convinced that we fought the war for a good cause, but that was not
enough. The world should also have known that our cause was good.
However, we lacked the effective means of mass propaganda to make that
clear to the world. Marxism certainly did not fight for great ideals.
Despite that, in November 1918 it overcame Kaiser, Reich and the army
because it was superior in the art of mass propaganda.
National Socialism learned from these two examples. It drew the
correct practical conclusions from that knowledge. The ideal of a
socialist national community did not remain mere theory with us, but
became living reality in the thoughts and feelings of 67 million
Germans. Our propaganda of word and deed created the conditions for
that. Mastering them kept National Socialism from the danger of
remaining the dream and longing of a few thousand. Through propaganda,
it became hard, steely everyday reality."
"Marxism could not be eliminated by a government decision. Its
elimination was the end result of a process that began in the people.
But that was only possible because our propaganda had shown people
that Marxism was a danger to both the state and society. The positive
national discipline of the German press would never have been possible
without the compete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish
press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our
propaganda. Today particularism in Germany is something of the past.
The fact that it was eliminated by a strong central idea of the Reich
is no accident, rather depended on psychological foundations that were
established by our propaganda.
Or consider economic policy. Does anyone believe that the idea of
class struggle could have been eliminated only by a law? Is it not
rather the fact that the seeds we sowed in a hundred thousand meetings
resulted in a new socialist structure of labor? Today employers and
workers stand together in the Labor Front. The Law on National Labor
is the foundation of our economic thinking, realizing itself more and
more. Are not these social achievements the result of the long and
tireless labor of thousands of speakers?"
"We could eliminate the Jewish danger in our culture because the
people had recognized it as the result of our propaganda. Major
cultural achievements such as the unique "Kraft durch Freude" are
possible only with the powerful support of the people. The
prerequisite was and is propaganda, which here too creates and
maintains the connection to the people.
The Winter Relief last year raised about 350 million Marks. This was
not the result of taxation, rather many gifts of every amount.
Everyone gave freely and gladly, many of whom in the past had done
nothing in the face of similar need. Why? Because a broad propaganda
using every modern means presented the whole nation with the need of
this program of social assistance.
45 million Reich Marks of goods and services were provided. 85 million
Reich Marks worth of fuel were distributed. 130 million Reich Marks
worth of food were given out. Ten million Reich Marks worth of meals
were provided, and 70 million Reich Marks worth of clothing.
Some of these achievements were the result of donations in kind,
others the result of cash donations. Street collections, donations of
a part of paychecks, contributions from companies, and gifts
subtracted from bank accounts resulted in cash totaling 184 million
Reich Marks. 24 million marks alone were the result of "One Dish
Sundays." The Reich itself added 15 million marks to the
contributions of the people. The railway system provided reduced or
free shipping with a value of 14 million Marks.
Of our population of 65,595,000, 16,511,00 were assisted by the Winter
Relief. There were 150,000 volunteers. There were only 4,474 paid
workers, of whom 4,144 were in the 34 Gaue and 330 in the Reich
headquarters.
Propaganda and education prepared the way for the largest social
assistance program in history. They were the foundation. Their success
was that, over a long winter, no one in Germany went hungry or was
cold.
Over 40 million people approved of the Fuehrer's decision to leave the
League of Nations on 12 November 1933. That gave him the ability to
speak to the world in the name of the nation, defending honor, peace
and equality as the national ideals of the German people. The issues
of disarmament were put on firm and clear foundations. Once again,
propaganda was the foundation for the nation's unity on 12 November,
and therefore of the freedom of action that the Fuehrer had.
Each situation brings new challenges. And each task requires the
support of the people, which can only be gained by untiring propaganda
that brings the broad masses knowledge and clarity. No area of public
life can do without it. It is the never resting force behind public
opinion. It must maintain an unbroken relationship between leadership
and people. Every means of technology must be put in its service; the
goal is to form the mass will and to give it meaning, purpose and
goals that will enable us to learn from past failures and mistakes and
ensure that the lead National Socialist strength has given us over
other nations will never again be lost.
May the bright flame of our enthusiasm never fade. It alone gives
light and warmth to the creative art of modern political propaganda.
Its roots are in the people. The movement gives it direction and
drive. The state can only provide it with the new, wide-ranging
technical means. Only a living relationship between people, movement
and state can guarantee that the creative art of propaganda, which we
have made ourselves the world's master, will never sink into
bureaucracy and official narrow-mindedness.
Creative people made it and put it in the service of our movement. We
must have creative people who can use the means of the state in its
service.
It is also a function of the modern state. Its reach is the firm
ground on which it must stand. It rises from the depths of the people,
and must always return to the people to find its roots and strength.
It may be good to have power based on weapons. It is better and longer
lasting, however, to win and hold the heart of a nation."
Kevin Cunningham
CB wrote:
> ...
>
(far right crapola snipped for your reading pleasure)
> HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
> John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1143131/posts
> --
> CB
Minor point. The Third Reich died after attacking Communist Russia.
What a maroon!
Topaz
<Iilly...@CrawfordRanch.net> wrote:
>Another GOP history revisionist. By ALL accounts Bush & Hitler are one and
>the same.
>
Bush stated that we must "ensure that anti-Semitism" - that is,
any writings that Jews don't like - "is excluded from school
text books, official statements, official television programming
and official publications...." Thanks, G.W. It's good to know
what your priorities are. Can you imagine Bush or Powell or
Giuliani, as much as they hate free speech, ever calling for laws
to suppress criticism of White people or even of America? It's
not going to happen. Forget it. Yet, in the hushed tones usually
reserved for sacred words spoken in church, they piously intone
that words critical of Jews be eliminated or made illegal. They
intone these words at international conferences, paid for by you
the taxpayers, called into session specifically for the purpose
of ending criticism of Jews. How much more obvious does it have
to be, dear listeners? Powell and Bush and Giuliani have given us
such a crystal clear example of Jewish power over our "leaders"
that even the most dense should be able to 'get it.'
Do you think that the OSCE delegates were mainly concerned with
stopping physical attacks on Jews and not on suppressing freedom
of speech? Think again. The Dutch delegate to the conference,
Daan Everts, specifically cited "[racist] music [and] racist
slogans"-slogans! -- as 'problems' to be addressed by new
laws.
And Israel's chief representative at the conference, Avraham
Toledo, specifically called on member governments to make
'anti-Semitism' a criminal offense. That's where they are going
with this. It can't possibly be any more obvious. A more chilling
nightmare scenario could not have been penned by a science
fiction author characterizing the Jews as a parasitic alien
species who have invaded us and taken over the ruling class in
our societies, and who are slowly programming us to kill or
imprison any 'rebels' who question the new ruling class, worship
of which is gradually being introduced in our schools and
churches as a pseudo-religion to cement their power over us.
[ <http://tinyurl.com/etzr> ]
It's interesting that the Bush administration withdrew its
delegates from the UN-sponsored 'World Conference Against Racism'
held in South Africa in 2001 when it was discovered that Jews
would be criticized for their treatment of Palestinians there.
But they enthusiastically endorse-with the participation of
Powell, Giuliani, and even Bush himself-this conference in
Vienna in which the entire focus is criminalizing criticism of
Jews and Jews alone. Clearly, our captured rulers have no problem
with the concept of conferences on racism. But conferences that
criticize Jews, however mildly, are verboten. And conferences
that denounce critics of Jews and Israel are national and
international priorities. It's Jewish interests that are their
driving force at all places and at all times. Jewish interests.
Not American interests. Not White interests. Any people so
betrayed by its own alleged leaders will not long survive on
Earth.
On June 18th, Giuliani stated that when people characterize Jews
"in inhumane ways, and make salacious statements in parliaments
or the press" about Jews, they are "attacking the defining values
of our societies and our international institutions."
Just as he did in the United States a few years ago, Giuliani
went on to call for special punishment for anyone in Europe found
to have violated his proposed 'hate crime' laws, punishment far
more severe than for similar offenses when the motivation was not
found to be dislike of Jews. He specifically justified this
unequal punishment of those who criticize Jews on the basis that
crimes against Jews are "particularly heinous." Crimes against
Englishmen, crimes against Italians, crimes against Frenchmen,
crimes against Americans-well, they're just crimes. Crimes
against Jews require special punishment. They're "particularly
heinous." Conferences must be held and new laws must be passed.
Giuliani ...continues
as he tells us what the real function of law should be in a
'good' society of obedient goyim: "Yes, some will argue that hate
crimes need not be punished more harshly than similar crimes
committed for different reasons. But the fact is that extra
penalties are used throughout civilized legal systems - in Europe
as well as America - as a way to distinguish acts that are
particularly heinous. One of the functions of the law is to
teach, to draw lines between what's permissible and what's
forbidden."
[ <http://tinyurl.com/f7j3> ]
More chills for your spine, ladies and gentlemen. "...what's
permissible and what's forbidden" as defined by Rudy Giuliani and
his Jewish masters. We don't need Alfred Hitchcock or Stephen
King anymore, now that we've got Rudy and the Jews. Yes,
"...what's permissible and what's forbidden"-truth about the
Jewish criminal conspiracy that is destroying our race and
nations is forbidden. Freedom is forbidden. A free press is
forbidden. Jewish ascendancy in a society often ends this way...
Giuliani continues his sermon, letting us know that there can
only be one point of view and one sacred victim group in World
War II history: "Making sure their citizens have an honest
understanding of the Holocaust is vital, as revisionist
viewpoints put us at risk of a repetition of race-based genocide.
Schools must look at how they educate children regarding
tolerance and fairness. Universities, public officials,
advertisers and the news media should publicize the tremendous
contributions that Jews have made to European societies through
the years."
Giuliani states that his purpose with regard to the rising
awareness of Jewish power and Jewish crimes in Europe is to see
that this increased consciousness is 'turned around.' I quote
from his June 13 address at the State department after accepting
the OSCE 'commission': "Coming from New York City and having had
the experience of being mayor of the world's most diverse city,
you learn... the value of having a focus on hate crimes and hate
incidents.... And then focusing your attention on those places in
which you have to educate people or you have to deal with people
who are wrongdoers. And the fact that this organization is giving
attention to this at this level, I think is a very positive sign
that we will be able to deal with it at this stage and start to
turn it in the right direction."
[ <http://tinyurl.com/f7lu> ]
It's clear that Rudy Giuliani's political ambitions are far from
over. His brown-nosing of the Jews has reached a fever pitch. We
can expect the same from ambitious politicians like Hilary
Clinton and many others as 2004 approaches. Elections in the
United States have become more and more contests between cynical
lying hacks who compete for favorable media coverage by trying to
be more subservient to the Jews and to Israel than the next
cynical lying hack. This guarantees them good coverage and more
votes from the unthinking victims of media manipulation. The
Semitically Sycophantic rhetoric will be more heated than ever in
future elections, as it takes extreme statements to compete for
the Jews' favor with George W., who was willing to slaughter
Arabs and Americans by the thousands for them.
But, as the ambitions and the actions of the Jews become more
extreme, the awareness they are trying to suppress will start to
bloom all over Europe, all over North America, and everywhere
where they have set up their criminal conspiracy to harness our
people for their evil ends and to eventually eradicate our race
from the face of the Earth. That's the historical pattern. Jews
gain power in a society, abuse that power through arrogance and
hate, and eventually the oppressed people expel their oppressors.
But this time, the process is not limited to one country like
20th century Germany or 15th century Spain. The process is now
global. And, as we and the other peoples of the Earth realize
that our mutual needs for self-determination and for freedom from
Jewish domination coincide, the days of the Jewish cryptocracy
will be numbered.
Instead of a government that serves Jewish interests above all,
and serves other minority interests as long as they don't
conflict with Jewish interests, we must have a government that
serves White interests. Under such a government, our labor and
our tax dollars and our blood would be expended only when they
served future generations of Whites, not squandered on the
megalomaniac dreams of the self-Chosen or on breeding the biomass
that threatens to engulf us. The conferences we will convene will
hold lying White politicians like Rudy Giuliani to account, and
will focus on such issues as the genocides against Whites
committed by Jews in Europe during the last century, and on
righting wrongs like the sexual slavery of young White women and
girls being practiced now by Jewish criminal gangs in Israel and
elsewhere.
When we have a government which pursues White interests instead
of Jewish interests, we will be incomparably richer, incomparably
more secure, incomparably more technically advanced and powerful-and,
in terms of Nature's highest commandment, the protection
of our children and our posterity, incomparably more moral than
we are today
Topaz
<sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Why? What makes you think that a dictionary can define political terms
>(which tend to change their meaning over the yesrs)
The villain of 1984 proclaims, "The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow
the range of thought." He concludes, "The Revolution will be complete
when the language is perfect."
Topaz
>a) The Party label was adopted by Nazis---it was never
>their own making
Hitler joined the National Socialists because he agreed with National
Socialism. He was the seventh member. He soon became the leader.
>
>b) Using the term "socialist" in relation to "National
>Socialists" is what I said it was.
No, it is socialist.
By Walter Ruthard
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens…
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children…
Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them…
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe… The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash…
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village…
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down…
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35…
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers…In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
Topaz
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absence
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas chamber"
which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually built by the
allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V are in
their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully
admit that it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical
evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who
died from gas have been found. The Communists were the first to enter
the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up
the buildings? Then they could claim that these demolished buildings
used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders from Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling
still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude
through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the British newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at
Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he
refused to
cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He
came in the winter
of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls
Mr. Jones. Two
other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell
to help break
him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and
day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down
his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise
he was made
to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three
days and
nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full
confession to
the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomery Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920 "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the
membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews
comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan,
The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Topaz
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of 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
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 the Jews America
didn't have any enemies in the Middle East.
Americans had a revolution when they were ruled by the British. If
the British accused
them of being "anti-British" would the Americans throw down their guns
and apologize?
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."
Topaz
Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former
leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS:
"One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers
was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French
Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the
concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per
year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as
generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.
Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right
to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they
applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the
younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other
hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out
blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more
generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of
rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just
coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve
days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years
with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
These figures may have been surpassed in the more than half a
century since then, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms. As
for overtime hours, they no longer were paid, as they were everywhere
else in Europe at that time, at just the regular hourly rate. The
work
day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours,
since
the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by
Hitler.
And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a
considerably increased rate...
Dismissal of an employee was no longer left as before the
sole discretion of the employer. In that era, workers' rights to job
security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were
strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four
weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months
in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by
the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also
called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three
great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the
benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council
of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.
The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the
establishment and the development of a real community spirit between
management and labor. In any business enterprise, the Reich law
stated, the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and
workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the
goal of the enterprise and the common good of
the nation...
Thus from 1933 on, the German worker had a system of justice
at his disposal that was created especially for him and would
adjudicate all grave infractions of the social duties based on the
idea of the Aryan enterprise community. Examples of these violations
of social honor are cases where the employer, abusing his power,
displayed ill will towards his staff or impugned the honor of his
subordinates, cases where staff members threatened work harmony by
spiteful agitation; the publication by members of the Council of
confidential information regarding the enterprise which they
became cognizant of in the course of discharging their duties.
Thirteen Tribunes of Social Honor were established, corresponding
with
the thirteen commissions...
From then on the worker knew that exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or offending his honor would no longer be
allowed. He had to fulfill certain obligations to the community, but
they were obligations that applied to all members of the enterprise,
from the chief executive down to the messenger boy. Germany's workers
at last had clearly established social rights that were arbitrated by
a Labor Commission and enforced by a Tribunal of Honor. Although
effected in an atmosphere of justice and moderation, it was a
revolution.
This was only the end of 1933, and already the first effects
could be felt. The factories and shops large and small were reformed
or transformed in conformity with the strictest standards of
cleanliness and hygiene; the interior areas, so often dilapidated,
opened to light; playing fields constructed; rest areas made
available
where one could converse at one's ease and relax during rest periods;
employee cafeterias; proper dressing rooms.
With time, that is to say in three years, those achievements
would take on dimensions never before imagined; more than 2,000
factories refitted and beautified; 23,000 work premises modernized;
800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing
fields;
13,000 sanitary facilities with running water; 17,000 cafeterias.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors
would foster and closely and continuously supervise these renovations
and installations.
The large industrial establishments moreover had been given
the obligation of preparing areas not only suitable for sports
activities of all kinds, but provided with swimming pools as well.
Germany had come a long way from the sinks for washing one's face and
the dead tired workers, grown old before their time, crammed into
squalid courtyards during work breaks.
In order to ensure the natural development of the working
class, physical education courses were instituted for the younger
workers; 8,000 such were organized. Technical training would be
equally emphasized, with the creation of hundreds of work schools,
technical courses and examinations of professional competence, and
competitive examinations for the best workers for which large prizes
were awarded.
To rejuvenate young and old alike, Hitler ordered that a
gigantic vacation organization for workers be set up. Hundreds of
thousands of workers would be able every summer to relax on the
sea. Magnificent cruise ships would be built. Special trains would
carry vacationers to the mountains and to the seashore. The
locomotives that hauled the innumerable worker-tourists in
just a few years of travel in Germany would log a distance equivalent
to fifty-four times around the world!
The cost of these popular excursions was nearly insignificant,
thanks to greatly reduced rates authorized by the Reichsbank.
Didn't these reforms lack something? Were some of them flawed
by errors and blunders? It is possible. But what did a blunder amount
to alongside the immense gains?
That this transformation of the working class smacked of
authoritarianism? That's exactly right. But the German people were
sick and tired of socialism and anarchy. To feel commanded didn't
bother them a bit. In fact, people have always liked having a strong
man guide them. One thing for certain is that the turn of mind of the
working class, which was still almost two-thirds non-Nazi in 1933,
had
completely changed.
The Belgian author Marcel Laloire would note: "When you make
your way through the cities of Germany and go into the working-class
districts, go through the factories, the construction yards, you are
astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting the Hitler
insignia, to see so many flags with the Swastika, black on a bright
red background, in the most populous districts." The Labor Front that
Hitler imposed on all of the workers and employers of the Reich was
for the most part received with favor.
And already the steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the
National Labor Service could be seen gleaming along the highways. The
National Labor Service had been created by Hitler out of thin air to
bring together for a few months in absolute equality, and in the same
uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the poorest
families. All had to perform the same work and were subject to the
same discipline, even the same pleasures and the same physical and
moral development. On the same construction sites and in the same
living quarters, they had become conscious of their commonality, had
come to understand one another, and had swept away their
old prejudices of class and caste. After this hitch in the National
Labor Service they all began to live as comrades, the workers knowing
that the rich man's son was not a monster, and the young lad from the
wealthy family knowing that the worker's son had honor just
like any other young fellow who had been more generously
favored by birth. Social hatred was disappearing, and a socially
united people was being born.
Hitler could already go into factories, something no man of the
so-called Right before him would have risked doing, and hold forth to
the mob of workers, tens of thousands of them at a time, as in the
Siemens works. In contrast to the von Papens and other country
gentlemen, he might tell them, "In my youth I was a worker like you.
And in my heart of hearts, I have remained what I was then." In the
course of his twelve years in power, no incident ever occurred at any
factory Adolf Hitler ever visited. When Hitler was among the people,
he was at home, and he was received like the member of
the family who had been most successful."
Topaz
>
>A liberal believes in the basic concept that individual rights are
>supreme. Therefore, it's impossible for a liberal to be a fascist.
Correct
>
>However, look at illegal wiretapping, torture, violations of the rules
>of war, violations of the Geneva Conventions etc. All this and more
>happened under conservatism. If Hitler were alive today he'd be happy
>knowing the GOP emulates his use of propaganda, hate, patriotism,
>nationalism and lawlessness.
Here are some quotes from the German pamphlet "How they Lie" from
1940. The pamphlet has many pictures but the words alone are
interesting enough:
"For example, what would you say if a colleague of yours, whom you
regarded as a rival and who disliked you, were to spread the rumor
that your household is in disorder, that you murder small children and
rape defenseless women? Rest assured that in our country such a person
would soon be behind bars.
But the international politicians and journalists who slander entire
peoples in a shameless manner not only run around freely, they
impudently put on airs as the saviors of human culture. No lie is too
crude for them, no slander too vulgar-they understand their craft.
Even in World War I they knew how to incite hate with the help of
atrocity propaganda. We all recall those daily lies of the "German
barbarian" who, "like a wild beast rages over the earth and destroys
everything in hate and the fury of annihilation, who tortures children
and delights in the tears of mothers," as a foreign paper once wrote.
In war, man stands against man. Each serves the Fatherland in his own
way, and no soldier will deny the knightly convictions of a noble
opponent. Today, however, a cowardly gang of professional agitators
daily invents new lies and pictures from the safety of their desks.
How was the German soldier once depicted by enemy atrocity propaganda?
We all know them, for we had fathers, brothers, sons, and men out
there. For instance, on 20 March 1915, the newspaper "Le Rire Rouge"
published the following picture of the good German soldier:
A bloodthirsty murderer of women and children, a robber and plunderer,
who nourishes himself with sausages made from human flesh-that was how
it saw the brave and loyal German soldier.
Each of us knows what a crude and baseless lie this is. Every decent
person in the world should have known this. And yet: "Some of it will
always be believed, the stupid and gullible will never see through it
all" - so hope the political liars and slanderers.
We know what to think about this flood of slander flowing over the
German people. We heard the same things between 1914 and 1918. Then as
now, they are attempting to drive a wedge between leaders and people.
The goal of this propaganda is always the annihilation of Germany.
We are also familiar with the old lie about the desecration of
churches and shrines, which are once again in fashion with our
enemies.
This is the undamaged cathedral of Tschenstochau.
The picture of the Polish shrine of the Black Madonna, with the German
soldiers in the foreground, was taken after its alleged destruction by
German bombers.
While the lying and yellow press of the entire world and the enemy
transmitters were inventing hypocritical stories about the presumed
destruction of the holy shrine, the Prior of Tschenstochau wrote the
above letter to the German military authorities that clearly testifies
that the monastery and holy shrine were untouched.
Thus the lie regarding supposed German attack could be immediately
exposed. The English Ministry of Advertising has had nothing to say
since.
In reality, these lies are ancient. Our enemies always babble about
violated sanctuaries, persecuted priests, murdered children and
tortured women in order to prejudice the world against Germany and to
arouse the impression that the world must be defended against "the
barbarians who are threatening human culture."
The picture above is taken from a leafet dated 19 August 1914. The
same lie was used back then. Supposedly the Germans had attacked the
monastery at Jasno-Gora.
They always lied, they lie today, they lie, they lie.
There were countless numbers of these malicious pictures in World War
I. Today we see the new versions of this crude charge. Enemy radio
reports reports of drugged candy and poison gas-filled children's
balloons, with which German troops allegedly killed Polish children.
And our enemies decided to spread this vile slander in the exact
moment that the world heard from neutral journalists about the
unimaginable crimes perpetrated by the Polish on fellow German
countrymen. All of these neutral independent reporters saw and
corroborated the terrible atrocities against Germans with their own
eyes. In light of these proven facts, the shameless enemy presumes to
turn the tables and pin these murders on the Germans, declaring that
the murdered, whose names and addresses are known, are Poles.
They hate the Fuehrer, because he exposes their lies and crimes.
They hate him, because he rescued the hard-working German people from
eploitation. How happy they would be to see the Führer and the entire
German people delivered into the dark machinations of the world
Jewry! It shows the impotence of the Jews, since all they can do is
drag a straw man through the streets and burn it.
What do these subhumans know about the joy of a genuine national
community? These warmongers are hard at work rousing the world against
Germany. How little they know about the indisoluble bond between
Führer and people that is so overwhelmingly clear in this picture:
The Fuehrer speaks with German workers.
He knows that he can trust them, and they know that our cause is in
his good hands.
The enemy countries, who are so worried about the fate of the German
people, also worry about the S. A.
We have often seen them; we know how these men look. They are our
comrades, our colleagues in the workplace, our fathers, brothers, sons
and men.
Do they look like this? Since when are these imagined daggers the true
symbol of the S. A.? Once again some professional liar has taken his
pen in his hand.
They lie, they lie....
German men from all regions and occupations use their free time and
energy in regular practice, so they can be ready to serve the
community. When in the summer of 1939 the agricultural labor force was
too small to bring in the rich harvest, these men freely joined in to
help with the harvest, serving the homeland on peaceful fields. Why
does the enemy press, which loves to speak of its objective reporting,
never carry such pictures of Germany?
The more one examines their endless scribbling and radio news, the
clearer one sees that these expert liars have never spoken the truth,
not even once.
This time a newspaper really outdid itself. Here we see how a German
holiday is libeled.
Christmas and Nazi Winter Relief
We all know this picture. It is the Christmas celebration of a German
family that did not have the means by itself to celebrate this holiday
of love in the way the Führer wishes, in the way that every German
family should experience.
The NSV got involved.
Helpers, men and women, walked upstairs and downstairs, heard the
wishes of the needy, and provided gifts.
We all know the results. In any case, the 80 million people of the
greater German Reich know that the liar who drew the picture on the
previous page of an alleged German Christmas is not only a liar but
also an idiot. If the gentlemen wanted to lie, they should have at
least started out more intelligently, so that they were not found out
immediately.
What National Socialist Germany has done and continues to do for
working people is unique in the entire world.
The foreign plutocratic countries that are dominated by high finance
viewed this new and happy life with envy and ill-will. They never
ceased in their endeavor to compel this new Germany into war, to keep
it in the same miserable state it was in after the Treaty of
Versailles.
But Germany knows what it has to lose. And because it is stronger than
the rest of the world, it will end this struggle victoriously.
Mr. Churchill, English warmonger, First Lord of the Admiralty,
architect of the encirclement campaign had it easy in the fall of
1939.
When he decided to wage war against Germany, he selected four English
passenger ships that were sailing to America. Then he sent the above
telegram, dated 28 August 1939, to Cunard White Star Lines, compelling
them to turn German passengers away from these ships, as they would be
uncomfortable eyewitnesses. See the accompanying letter from the
shipping company, dated 29 August 1939. Churchill then sent suitable
"rescue ships" to be "coincidentally" on the course of these ships,
which were now loaded with Americans. The Athenia was torpedoed and
sunk. If the affair with the "Athenia" not worked, then one of the
other three ships would have been sunk,so that Mr. Churchill would
have more stories for the English Ministry of Lies.
We know the rest. The yellow press of the world blows Churchill's
lying horn obediently: a German submarine allegedly sank the
"Athenia."
But the evil, criminal escapade failed. Germany got hold of the
documents and exposed the criminals.
Once again, one of the vilest and most base of the English lies is
exposed.
The following story is perhaps the best way of showing the reality of
moneybags journalism, and how decent foreign journalists are forced to
invent lie afer lie.
A couple of months ago, a foreign journalist whose name we must hide
in order to protect his job, came to Germany. He wanted to see the
alleged "Nazi hell" with his own eyes, in order to give an eyewitness
account.
He saw workers who had jobs. He saw workers taking vacations with the
KdF. And he saw workers going to the theater. He saw the NSV's charity
for the poor. He saw and was amazed.
He had not expected to see that! How could he, knowing the truth,
continue to write lies and false atrocity stories about Germany, like
the financiers of his newspaper want it?...
In German camps, criminals and misfits live in clean and orderly
accommodations, receive sufficient nourishment and have enough time
for both work and play.
The foreign press reporter visited one of these camps.
The officials of the German concentration camp were outraged when they
later read his article.
The article talked about piles of corpses over which the poor reporter
had to climb, of moaning people in dark dungeons, of caning orgies and
other such imaginary atrocities.
The man had seemed so honest. How could he lie like that? What had
happened? The journalist wrote a letter to explain. He had written a
truthful account of what he had seen at the concentration camp.
But the owner of the newspaper switched everything around. Naturally
there are decent foreign papers that would never falsify the facts
like that, but we are not talking about them here.
The newspaperman begged the Germans not to take action against his
paper or the publisher who falsified the report, because then he would
lose his job.
That is how freedom of the press looks like in other countries; that
is how the lies and fairy tales come to be.
The Fuehrer spoke about the criminal newspaper Jews and the war
profiteers, in his speech on 6 October. They order the journalists and
radio reporters around like schoolboys. These "servants of public
opinion" are not allowed to have convictions or express their true
opinions, and only a very few exceptions prove this rule. They must
lie and slander and blacken Germany and its Fuehrer to keep the
gentlemen behind the plutocratic, moneybag policies in business.
But why do these newspaper moneybags lie so crudely, so stupidly, so
impudently? Why do they spread their slander all over Germany of all
places?
They lie because they are weak and Germany is strong. They lie because
they want to make money by going to war against Germany, even though
the people do not want to go to war and are scared to go to war
against a strong Germany...
Things are a thousand times better here. Things are more honest and
fair here than anywhere in the entire world.
Here we recognize the honor of the worker.
Here there is a right to work.
Here the moneybags are not in control...
In conclusion:
We will not be confused by the lies of the foreign countries! We know
what we are fighting for!
Topaz
"Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
"Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so that he
better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment no longer
haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again, and those
who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
plant in which they together work...
Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
individual good, who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
"right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
service to the people. The National Socialist Labor Service will see
to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
for the good of the nation."
Baldin Lee Pramer
> ...
>
> Modern Leftism
>
> Before we answer that question,
What question?
BLP
3783 Dead
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> And the IRA is a Republican group.
As was Saddam's Republican Guard.
3783 Dead
And in fact, when Hitler came to power, socialists, communists and
trade unionists (who Hitler saw as socialist) were the first sent off
to the camps.
Rightwinghank
..............................
Take from the working class...give to the lazy poor who
are fat and have cell phones.
CB
"zzpat" <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fcjio...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> CB wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Modern Leftism
>>
>
> A liberal believes in the basic concept that individual rights are
> supreme. Therefore, it's impossible for a liberal to be a fascist.
BS, Liberals think the State be supreme. Hence Hillary's motto:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
--Senator Hillary Clinton 2004
Karl Marx Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848
"I don't feel no ways tired"
http://www.registeredmedia.com/gallery/files/4/hillaryblackface.jpg
Saturday Hillary spoke befoe duh NAACP and promised to be a better Cracker
if elected.
...
"We have to believe justice is blind in America," she told the audience.
The earlier campaign statement accused the Bush administration of driving
the Civil Rights Division "toward an agenda driven by partisanship, cronyism
and ideology" and cited media reports that state political appointees have
dominated the hiring process under Bush.
Last month, Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, the Justice Department's
top civil rights enforcer, resigned after more than a year of criticism that
his office filled its ranks with conservative loyalists instead of
experienced attorneys. The Justice Department said his office had set record
levels of civil rights enforcement.
Clinton's other proposals include combatting voter ID laws, letting
ex-felons who have completed their sentences regain their right to vote and
making Election Day a federal holiday to make voting easier. She said she
would press for Washington, D.C., to get a seat in the House of
Representatives.
Clinton also is proposing an expansion of federal hate crimes legislation to
include crimes committed against people based on their gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity or disability.
If elected Hillary would do to the Justice system what Slick did to it and
to the military.
Justice 'is' color blind. The kid who was beated sustained $12K in medical
bills, his eyes bled from being kicked in the head by six black kids.
The only reason kids are tried as ahult is because of prior criminal
records. I looked up and found this video which a (gay fellow) dude said he
had a 'minor' record, what ever that means.
Now that Hillary has weighed in you can bet Mychal Bell will have an image
consultant.
--
CB
While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals
always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.
Ann Coulter
Berk
> "zzpat" <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fcjio...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > CB wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Modern Leftism
> >>
> >
> > A liberal believes in the basic concept that individual rights are
> > supreme. Therefore, it's impossible for a liberal to be a fascist.
>
> BS, Liberals think the State be supreme. Hence Hillary's motto:
>
capitalist fuck (aka: A conservative) and the Romans were Communists!
Yeah! That's the ticket.
No wonder why asshole right wing extremists like you are against higher
education.
I love your trailer park wisdumb. It makes an ape using a stick to pull
ants out a hill to eat look like theoretical physicist Professor Stephen
Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA,.
Shit! Limbaugh and Hannity are your intellectual heroes and both of them
found college too challenging so they dropped out.
Berk
The question remains as to whether an ignoramus like GW Bush will be
prevented by the publishers from calling his post-Presidential biography "A
Triumph Of The Will" or "My Struggle" due to how he'll probably think that
the names sound nice and roll off the tongue in such an eloquent and
authoritative manner!
Berk
politics. He gets his facts from the right wing media and thinks that
history books are for collecting dust in a library.
Probably a place where he went so he could have a quiet nap during his
salad days in high school.
Truthmaster
news:i4mqe39vs0jtmkcm8...@4ax.com:
Nazism, or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers
primarily to the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party
(National Socialist German Workers' Party, German: Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP) under Adolf Hitler. It also refers to
the policies adopted by the government of Germany from 1933 to 1945, a
period in German history known as Nazi Germany or the "Third Reich".[1]
Adolf Hitler named the party the National SOCIALISTS you fucking
douchbags. This just goes to show how little people today know about
history and reality in general. Today people just "make up" history to
suit their idealogy! If you don't believe the holocaust happened, go out
to a video store and rent "Shoah," it is a complete oral history of
people who survived the death camps. Or read the oficial minutes of the
"Wannasee Conference" in which Heydrich officially planned the "Final
Solution" for the Jews. Or go to the Holocaust Museum in Los Angeles and
see the pictures and videos of 3 million pairs of eyeglasses in a huge
pile--where did they come from? And Millions of shoes, etc. And huge
ovens used for creamation, and thousands of cases of Zylon gas--yes it
was real people, open your eyes!
stunade@1stmagnitude.com Stu Gotz
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i4mqe39vs0jtmkcm8...@4ax.com...
>
> During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
> insane.
> There is no evidence Topaz has anything but a skull full of mush, and an
> ass full of gas.
>
Sure thing, Toespazz...Despite what numerous surviving witnesses said about
the gassing of Jews, despite the testimony of the Sonderkommando, you still
deny such a thing happened. You have as much credibility as the posters who
say no planes hit the WTC, dummy.
stunade@1stmagnitude.com Stu Gotz
>
> Here are parts of a speech by a Gobbling Turkey, delivered in
> Topaz's back yard in 1934. The ending of this speech is in the film Fuck
> Topaz's Mama--everyone else did.
jetgraphics
wrote:
> On 16 Sep, 14:34, jetgraphics <jetgraph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why? What makes you think that a dictionary can define political terms
> (which tend to change their meaning over the yesrs) or complex
> abstract ideas?
JG: Good question. If we can't agree on the definition of terminology,
we'll argue pointlessly.
However, if a dictionary is NOT an authority on a specific term, can
you supply a better authority?
I agree that colloquial use of terms is often different from a
professional / narrow focus interpretation.
> > FASCISM - any political or social ideology of the extreme right
>
> Assuming that we can all gree what THAT means...
JG: Good point. To the best of my knowledge, any rebellion to existing
authority is inherently LEFT WING.
Ergo, the American Revolution / Rebellion of 1776 would be interpreted
to be LEFT WING by the English monarchy.
However, once the new government was enacted, those who support it
would then become RIGHT WING.
Technically, those of this era who seek to void the terms of the
original compact (Declaration of Independence, Articles of
Confederation, U.S. Constitution, et seq) would be left wing - against
traditional authority.
If and when they succeed, the counter revolutionaries would be left
wing.
> >which
> > relies on a combination of pseudo-religious attitudes
>
> Why pseudo-religious?
JG: I take that to mean the elevation of the leadership to cult
status, as well as the mantle of deity applied to Der Fuhrer. Since
secular persons are not religious persons, pseudo-religious is
appropriate.
> >and the brutal
> > use of force for getting and keeping power.
>
> > The major characteristics of "Fascism" :
> > [] EXTREME RIGHT
> > [] PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS
> > [] BRUTAL
>
> I don't know of any reputable historian or political scientist who
> would agree with that definition.
JG: Perhaps their dictionary uses different words?
On the other hand, what if "reputable" historians and scientists are
part of the propaganda ministry.
If one is in academia and constantly spouts off in unfashionable
rhetoric, the hierarchy does tend to shut one down.
Perhaps the academia are encouraged to ignore the Emperor's New
Clothes.
> > Let's consider the wing with which people are associated with, when
> > speaking of political partisanship.
>
> You mean that any criticism of this daft posting has to be 'left'
> inspired?
JG: Nothing of the kind. I imply that most folks assume meanings that
may be different or even opposite of the actual terminology.
For example, the word "mayhem". Before I took the time to look it up,
I assumed it meant something violent, but was unclear on the exact
meaning.
Mayhem means to inflict violence to the point that the victim is
incapable of defense, as in knocking someone unconscious. Any further
attack would be attempted murder (or murder), with no reasonable claim
of self defense permissible.
> > LEFT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that
> > holds the most left or radical views. Webster's Dictionary
>
> > RIGHT WING - the section of a political party, government or group
> > that holding the views of the Right. Webster's Dictionary
>
> Well....duh! (As you quaint colonials say.)
> > THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates
> > itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative
> > bodies is
> > seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer. Webster's
> > Dictionary
>
> That's a rather conventional definition confined to the democratic
> right in Europe and America....it doesn't extent to the totalitarian
> or corporate right....
JG: GOOD POINT. Democracy is very bad. :-)
But it's an error to assume that corporate / corporationists are
"right", for they are opposed to traditional authority.
Again, terminological conflicts may be operative.
Biggest mistake is to assume corporations are part of capitalism. They
are not.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for
private profit. Webster's Dictionary
Now, let's concatenate the definition for private property with
capitalism -
CAPITALISM = An economic system by which the means of production,
distribution and exchange are (absolutely owned by individuals) and
operated for private profit.
Since corporations are creatures of government, and are not private
property, they are not part of capitalism. Corporations are inherently
evil / destructive because of (a) limited liability, and (b) usury.
The investors are permitted to make profit (interest, usury), without
sharing responsibility for injuries that corporations inflict upon
others. That is why corporations were NOT a "right" of the people, but
a government granted privilege, subject to rules and regulations. And
as many victims have discovered, corporations often escape paying
amends for their crimes, by bankruptcy, discorporation and dissolving.
Limited liability (ducking responsibility for injuries) is also
against most, if not all religions. I believe corporations are guilty
until proven innocent, and even then I would keep one hand on my
wallet.
> > THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most
> > from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies
> > is seated
> > traditionally to the left of the presiding officer. Webster's
> > Dictionary
>
> That largely relates to Social Democrats. It does not extend to
> revolutionary marxists and marxist-leninists.
JG: If the definition of socialism and communism means the abolishment
of private property, and replacement with collective ownership by the
State, then you're incorrect. Any adherent of anti-private property
are opposed to law that protects private property owners. Ergo,
they're LEFT WING.
>From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single sentence: Abolition of private property."
And if I recall, the Communist Manifesto was written by communist
theorists Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.
One may safely conclude that communism (and socialism) support the
abolishment of private property, and replacing it with something else.
And in case we're in disagreement of terms, here's the definition of
private property (in American law).
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is
such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he
has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed
and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to
another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
The folks who oppose private property ownership apparently want to
STEAL it from the owners, for the benefit of the collective.
That makes ALL "left wing" revolutionaries into PIRATES. (In case you
were unaware, piracy ashore is also known as a felony).
Socialists are pirates.
> > Is that clear?
> > Left = opposition to traditional authority
> > Right = support of traditional authority
>
> No it isn't clear, since it does not comprehend fascism. Fascism is
> not, repeat not, a democratic political group.
JG: Who said it was? Fascism's characteristics are not dependent upon
democracy.
A democratic majority can oppose or support traditional authority.
Many pirate crews voted for their captain, but it didn't change the
nature of their criminal actions.
> > True "Fascism" would have to be in support of "traditional" authority,
> > using brutality and pseudo-religious behavior.
>
> Well no, since most historians and political scientists do not accept
> your definition.
JG: Please provide some contrary references, if you would.
> > Now, let's ask the hypothetical historian to identify which
> > "traditional authority" that Hitler (and his fellow socialist
> > Mussolini, who was an official party functionary in the Socialist
> > Party, as well as editor of the Socialist newspaper
> > "Avanti!" ('Forward')) were in support of?
>
> > (Silence)
>
> Well, I could refer you to the conservative aristotelian view of
> society, and its later interpreters, chiefly Aquinas, Herder, and
> Hegel. That was an important influence upon Hitler and Mussolini....as
> well as the more clerical fascists, such as Franco and Dolfuss.
JG: Your rebuttal fails to provide an cogent facts in evidence.
Aristotle did not oppose private property. Nor did any other Christian
theologian or philosopher. They would be in conflict with "Thou shalt
not steal."
Do you agree or disagree that private property ownership is an
inherent right?
If you agree that private property ownership (*absolute ownership by
an individual) is a right, and each individual, when of legal age and
capacity, absolutely owns himself, then ANY PHILOSOPHY (idealism,
dogma, etc) that attacks, denies, or forbids his ownership is contrary
to traditional law (secular or sacred).
If you disagree, then we've come to a parting of the ways, since you
espouse thievery as your moral code.
In America's case, the #1 Statute of the United States of America (aka
Declaration of Independence) informs us that governments are
instituted among men to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who
consent.
To secure rights, implies rights exist. Among these rights are life,
liberty and private property (euphemistically referred to as "pursuit
of happiness").
And for those who are unfamiliar with American law, there are certain
delegations of power to the government.
Unfortunately, many Americans are victims of propaganda and
indoctrination so they do not question certain inconsistencies.
For example, if government was created to secure rights, how did it
get the power to destroy those same rights?
A U.S. citizen can be compelled to fight and die (loss of life),
compelled to sit for jury duty (loss of liberty), and lose property to
condemnation.
However, the operative term is "citizen", which I showed was
synonymous with "subject".
The one important distinction that America has and no other nation on
this planet has, is a republican form of government. I do not mean
"republic". In American law, the republican form is rarely discussed.
In fact, when I wrote to the Congressional Research Service, and asked
if any laws were passed or court cases ruling on it, their reply was
nil.
Here's the facts:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion..."
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are
vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly,
or through
representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are
specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
Now, contrast that definition with this:
"DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power
resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens
directly or indirectly through a
system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy,
or oligarchy."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432
The key differences are the identity of the sovereign power and the
manner in which is wielded.
Republican form = people, directly
Democratic form = whole body of free citizens, indirectly
The former post went into detail about who the sovereigns are (the
people), who the subjects are (citizens), and that government is not
sovereignty.
Most Americans are kept ignorant of that fact, because they may then
choose to not cooperate in their "voluntary servitude".
For those who are unaware of American law, involuntary servitude is
unconstitutional, except after conviction. However, there is no
restriction on voluntary servitude.
> > Hitler was LEFT WING, thus the exact opposite of FASCISM.
>
> Hitler was a fascist, and therfore right wing...
JG: Not according to the definition of terminology. In fact,
Wikipedia's definition of NAZI and Fascism is a bit tainted with
historical revisionism.
Some one claimed that the bundle of sticks (fasces) was a symbol for
collective ownership (socialism!?). In fact, the fasces was the
abstract symbol for the awesome power of cooperation of weak
individuals. The idea was illustrated by the fact that though thin
sticks are individually weak, when bundled together, they can oppose
mighty forces. The fasces was used to grace many a public building
centuries before Hr Marx and Engels spouted their piratical bafflegab.
> > The National Socialist German Workers Party was socialist, not right
> > wing. Was someone lying when the socialists (*left wingers) claimed to
> > be fascist right wingers?
>
> Yes. And it was not a socialist claiming that. It was Goebbels.
JG: Obviously to hide the fact that they were LEFT WING pirates!
Doesn't BUSH assert that his unAmerican activities are for the
protection of Americans?
D'Oh!
> > SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
> > ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It
> > is based upon the
> > belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are
> > equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can
> > provide.
> > --- Webster's dictionary
>
> Actually, that isn't a definition of socialism. It's certanly not one
> that Marx would recognise.
JG: The facts dispute your assertion. Marx was promoting communism,
the enemy of private property ownership!
If absolute ownership is abolished, all that remains is qualified
ownership, where 2 or more (the collective State) have a claim upon
the person and property of everyone.
>
> > Hitler did endeavor to have the STATE take over ownership of Germany,
> > lock, stock and barrel. That is NOT right wing totalitarianism. It is
> > plain old SOCIALIST totalitarianism. The all powerful state, under the
> > control of the Fuhrer, was entirely left wing.
>
> But the German economy remained a capitalist one. There was no attempt
> to create a war economy until after 1942. I would suggest that you
> read some decent history books.
JG: I think you've been misinformed on the nature of capitalism.
When the Third Reich arbitrarily took people and their property, for
public use (and abuse), it was definitely opposing absolute ownership
by individuals, as well as denying them the fruits of their labor.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
profit.
WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
> > To further clarify the situation, one must remember that the U.S.A.
> > became a socialist state in 1935, with the enactment of the Social
> > Security Act of 1935.
>
> Sorry.....I've suddenly realised that you may be a nutter....
JG: It is often painful to face certain facts and dismiss them by
sweeping generalizations. However, I do provide the authorities and
references for my material.
Would you be so kind as to provide yours?
> Goodbye,
> Dr. Barry Worthington
JG: Apparently academic credentials do make illiteracy and ignorance
fashionable.
B.S. - heifer dung
M.S. - more dung
Ph.D. - piled higher and deeper
:-)
More than 2,000 years ago, Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in
Roman law as hostis humani generis, "enemies of the human race." From
that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as
international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction-meaning that
they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds
them.
PIRACY is a robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on the shore, by an
agent without a commission from a sovereign nation. It is usually
accompanied by a threat of violence, assault and or murder of the
former owners.
COLLECTIVISTS (socialists and communists) seek to deprive the owners
of private property (*land, houses, tools, chattels) of their absolute
ownership thereof, and take the property for the "Ship of State".
Though collectivists share the booty stolen from the owners, that does
not change the nature of their thievery. Robbing St Peter to pay St
Paul is not morality by any stretch of the language.
Thus we can discern the true nature of the "left wing" / socialist
revolution as a smoke screen for institutionalized piracy, via
taxation, extortion, and confiscation.
Any socialist government is flying the "Jolly Roger" on the ship of
state, and every crewman is just as guilty, when they share the booty
taken from the previous owners.
jetgraphics
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or
claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or
producing evidence against the claim.
FYI - "Communist" Russia never achieved communism. By their own
admission, they only achieved socialism.
Interesting....
Socialist USSR fighting with the German national socialists, allied
with Italian national socialists, who later fought with American and
English socialists...
But that is to be expected - since socialism is piracy clothed in
bafflegab.
jetgraphics
> On Sep 16, 10:28 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Sep, 14:34, jetgraphics <jetgraph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why? What makes you think that a dictionary can define political terms
> > (which tend to change their meaning over the yesrs) or complex
> > abstract ideas?
Well, let's depart from the realm of foggy academia and examine some
REAL HARD FACTS associated with the socialist regime in America.
According to the national debt clock site:
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 17 Sep 2007 at 02:18:02 AM GMT is:
$ 9,020,927,565,653.77.
Unfortunately, that is an obligation to pay over 9 trillions in lawful
money of the United States. In case you were unaware, lawful money is
NOT and never was Federal Reserve Notes, which are borrowed into
existence at usury.
NOTE - An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of
signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer,
a definite sum of money at a specified time. An instrument that is a
promise to pay other than a certificate of deposit. U.C.C. 3-104(2)(d)
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1060
MONEY - In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper
currency used as a circulating medium of exchange, and does
not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real
estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W. 2d 74, 79, 81.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1005
[Notes are NOT MONEY, by definition]
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the
United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the
United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
TITLE 12,CHAPTER 3,SUBCHAPTER XII,sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks;
nature of obligation; redemption
" Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve
agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are
authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States
and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal
reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They
shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department
of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia,
or at any Federal Reserve bank."
Pursuant to the law, Federal Reserve Notes are OBLIGATIONS (debts).
They are denominated in dollars, but they are NOT dollars, as defined
by the Coinage Act of 1792, et seq.
"Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the
same is now current, and to contain three
hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths parts of a grain of
pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard, silver."
Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, January 1792
In case you thought that the U.S. Congress "redefined" what a dollar
was, let me refer you to Title 31.
31 USC Sec. 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
(e)(1) ...weight 31.103 grams;
(e)(4) have inscriptions ... 1 Oz. Fine Silver ... One Dollar.
Since House Joint Resolution 192, 1933, the U.S. Congress will no
longer redeem their notes (promises to pay lawful money). Nor will any
member bank of the private Federal reserve corporation.
That means the U.S. government has operated in a State of Emergency
(bankruptcy) since 1933. Few, if any Americans have ever paid their
debts with real dollars since 1933. Every Federal Reserve Note is
worthless (no par value in law).
Coincidentally, the creditors have granted "special drawing rights" to
the U.S. government in gratitude for the millions of "human resources"
who signed up with Social Security (1935) as "contributors" (equally
liable) to pay that dratted national debt.
There's one small problem with the national debt -
That computes to a LEGAL obligation to pay the creditor 450 billion
ounces of gold bullion, or 6.75 trillion ounces of silver bullion,
stamped into coin.
Tucked away at Fort Knox: 147.3 million ounces of gold.
A shortfall of 447 billion ounces.
Last quick check on the internet shows that sum exceeds the world's
total supply of bullion by several orders of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
"At the end of 2001, it was estimated that all the gold ever mined
totaled 145,000 tonnes."
1 tonnes = 35,273.9619 ounces (avoirdupois)
5,114,724,475.5 ounces.
Let's do the math:
Legal obligation to repay 447 billion ounces.
World supply equals 5.1 billion ounces.
(D'Oh!)
It's no better for silver.
(see: http://www.silverinstitute.org/supply/index.php)
The above ground stock of silver, in 2006, was 194.4 million ounces.
That's more than a slight shortfall from the 6.75 trillion ounces of
silver bullion, stamped into coin, required to pay the national debt
in silver dollars.
At current mining rates -and if the bullion exists, it may only take
87 thousand years to pay it off.
(D'Oh!) x 2
For meaningful political change, we would be better served with
leaving national socialism (Social Security).
There is no law compelling participation, nor punishing one for not
participating in American national socialism. It's 100% voluntary.
Without the millions of "human resources" the creditor(s) may find
themselves at a slight disadvantage, with regard to the "national
debt" created by abominable usury.
I suppose a similar situation exists in the UK with respect to the
Bank of England, pound notes, and the nearly impossible obligation to
pay sterling silver or gold sovereigns.
But if you think that a legal obligation to perform that which is
practically impossible is not evidence of widespread "nutter-ism",
perhaps you need to check your brain at the door.
And let me end this with a simple question :
Can we ask the Federal Reserve Corporation to produce the receipts for
"real money" (gold or silver coin) loaned to the bankrupted United
States government to substantiate their claim for 9 trillions?
Fort Knox certainly doesn't show it -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository
The United States Bullion Depository holds approximately 4,570 tons of
gold bullion (147.3 million ounces). However, pursuant to the Coinage
Act of 1792, et seq, those 147.3 million ounces computes to 2.9
Billion DOLLARS.
How did the United States become 9 trillion in debt when there's only
proof that 2.9 billions is in the treasury?
Oops...
Dr. Barry Worthington
My father's generation wiped the floor with people like you. Please
bugger off!
Dr. Barry Worthington
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Sep 16, 12:16 pm, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > CB wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > (far right crapola snipped for your reading pleasure)
>
> > > HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
> > > John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
> > >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1143131/posts
> > > --
> > > CB
>
> > Minor point. The Third Reich died after attacking Communist Russia.
>
> > What a maroon!
>
> An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
> "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of
> replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
> an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or
> claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or
> producing evidence against the claim.
>
> FYI - "Communist" Russia never achieved communism. By their own
> admission, they only achieved socialism.
Communist Russia never achieved other than
Nikita Kruschev, by his own Politburo shoe admission.
Since the moron 100 Megaton bomb / SCUD weren't the great
Commie / Military evolution the morons though it would be
with the development of Stealth Tech, Digital Tech, and HE Cruise
Missiles.
Since the only thing any of the morons knew about
Turing machines, was unfortunately Alonzo Church.
And the only thing Alonzo Church knew about machines
was unfortunately The New York Times & Syncopated
Game Theory morons LTD.
Topaz
<jetgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>JG: Good question. If we can't agree on the definition of terminology,
>we'll argue pointlessly.
>However, if a dictionary is NOT an authority on a specific term, can
>you supply a better authority?
Some authority that doesn't kiss up to Jews. 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 of 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
stu...@1stmagnitude.com> wrote:
>
>Sure thing, Toespazz...Despite what numerous surviving witnesses
""Eyewitness reports" include those of Elie Wiesel, an Auschwitz
"survivor" who in his famous book NIGHT described the throwing of
truckloads of Jews into blazing trenches to burn to death, adults in
one blazing trench and babies in another. He claimed that he "saw it
with my own eyes!" and furthermore that he himself was marched up to a
blazing trench many times, but for some reason (presumably a miracle)
was never thrown in. No serious scholar now believes the story of Jews
being burned to death, though that is the origin of the term
"Holocaust" in this connection.
Wiesel seems to have pretty much dropped the fiction of burning Jews
to death, since no one believes that story anymore anyway. The
question is:
Why, since he was a prisoner at Auschwitz for so long, did he not
regale the reader with stories of gas chambers in that early book?
(Obvious answer:
There WERE no gas chambers at Auschwitz, and the whole gas-chamber
mythology did not really become popular until after he had written the
book.)"
Seneca
> said about
>the gassing of Jews, despite the testimony of the Sonderkommando,
People who write confessions are often told exactly what to write,
word for word, by their interrogators. I know this because it happened
to me.
Some Germans did "confess":
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders frorn Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made
to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the Britsh newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us
when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities
during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a
small jail cell in the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other
soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help
break him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night
and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time
he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones.
When Höss was taken out for exercise he was made to wear only jeans
and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights
without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to
the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture.
In his memoirs Hoess recounts the circumstances of his arrest and what
followed. The treatment that he underwent was particularly brutal.
At
first blush it's surprising the Poles allowed Hoess to make the
revelations he did concerning the British military police. Perhaps
they
did so to lend the Hoess confession a veneer of veracity; or to move
the
reader to make a comparison, flattering for the Polish Communists,
betweenthe British and Polish methods.
In fact, Hoess later said that during the first part of his detention
at Cracow, his jailers came very close to breaking him physically and
psychologically, but that later they treated him with "such decent and
considerate treatment" that he consented to write his memoirs; to
provide an explanation for certain absurdities contained in the text
(NO-1210) that the British police had made Hoess sign, one of these
absurdities being the invention of an extermination camp in a place
which never existed on any Polish map: "Wolzek near Lublin." Hoess had
talked of 3 camps-Belzek [sic], Tublinka [sic] and Wolzek near Lublin,
although the Belzec and Treblinka camps did not yet exist when (June
1941) Himmler, according to Hoess, told him they were already
functioning as "extermination camps."
Here is how, one after the other, Rudolf Hoess described his arrest by
the British, his signing of the document classified as NO-1210, his
transfer to Minden-on-the-Weser, where the treatment that he underwent
was worse yet, his stay at the IMT prison, and, finally, his
extradition to Poland [Commandant in Auschwitz, Introduction by Lord
Russell of Liverpool, English translation Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1959, P. 173-175]:
<quote>
I was arrested on 11 March 1946 [at 11 pm].
My phial of poison had been broken two days before.
When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked
by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That
was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by Field Security
Police.
I was taken to Heide where I was put m those very barracks from which
I had been released by the British eight months earlier.
At my first interrogation evidence was obtained by beating me. I do
not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the
whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had
got into my wife's luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far
less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my Investigators was
convinced I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.
After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main
interrogation centre in the British Zone. There I received further
rough treatment at hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.
The conditions in the prison accorded with this behaviour.
After three weeks, to my surprise, I was shaved and had my hair cut
and I was allowed to wash. My handcuffs had not previously been
removed since my arrest.
On the next day I was taken by lorry to Nuremberg, together with a
prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in
Fritzsche's defence. My imprisonment by the International Military
Tribunal was a rest-cure compared to what I had been through before.
I was accommodated in the same building as the principal accused, and
was able to see them daily as they were taken to the court. Almost
every day we were visited by representatives for all the Allied
nations. I was always pointed out as an especially interesting animal.
I was in Nuremberg because Kaltenbrunner's counsel had demanded me as
a witness for his defence. I have never been able to grasp, and it is
still not clear to me, how I of all people could have helped to
exonerate Kaltenbrunner. Although the conditions in prison were, in
every respect, good-I read whenever I had the time, and there was a
well stocked library available-the interrogations were extremely
unpleasant not so much physically, but far more because of their
strong psychological effect. I cannot really blame the
interrogators-they were all Jews.
Psychologically I was almost cut in pieces. They wanted to know all
about everything, and this was also done by Jews. They left me in no
doubt whatever as to the fate that was in store for me.
On 25 May, my wedding armiversary as it happened, I was driven with
van Burgsdorff and Bühler to the aerodrome and there handed over to
Polish officers. We flew in an American plane via Berlin to Warsaw.
Although we were treated very politely during our journey, I feared
the worst when I remembered my experiences in the British Zone and the
tales I had heard about the way people were being treated in the East.
</quote>
If, as is obvious, Hoess was tortured into confessing absurdities,
then it is not too far-fetched to suppose the same brutal treatment
would have been given to other Allied prisoners. (As, indeed, it was.)
For example, during his oral deposition on April 15, 1946, before the
IMT, Hoess agreed (responding to Col. Amen's question) that he had
overseen the killings Hungarian Jews in early 1943 -- even though the
first convoy of them did not arrive in Auschwitz until May 1944.
A month earlier Hoess had signed a statement claiming to have arranged
for the "gassings of two million persons between June/July 1941 and
the end of 1943."
Yet, Col. Amen did not ask Hoess to elaborate on the text of his
"confession" which he held in his hands. Hence, what references are
contained in transcripts of the Nuremberg trial to the gas chambers
are vague and few in number.
The IMT records certainly do not include any expert report on the
weapon of a crime without precedent and autopsy reports clinically
confirming deaths by a gassing with the agent Zyklon B at Auschwitz,
for instance."
Orest Slepokura
> you still
>deny such a thing happened. You have as much credibility as the posters who
>say no planes hit the WTC, dummy.
>
By Faurisson
The Unraveling of the Witnesses at the First Zündel Trial (1985)
The important victory won by revisionism in France on April 26, 1983,
would go on to confirm itself in 1985 with the first Zündel trial in
Toronto. I would like to dwell a moment on this trial in order to
underscore the impact on one's point of view, and especially as far as
the testimonies on the Auschwitz gas chambers are concerned: for the
first time since the war, Jewish witnesses were subjected to a regular
cross-examination. Moreover, without wanting to minimize the
importance of the second Zündel trial (that of 1988), I should like it
to be understood that the 1985 trial already contained the seeds for
all that was attained in the 1988 trial, including the report by
Leuchter and all the scientific reports which, in the aftermath, would
proliferate in the wake of the Leuchter Report.
In 1985, as also afterwards in 1988, I served as advisor to Ernst
Zündel and his lawyer, Douglas Christie. I accepted this heavy
responsibility only under condition that all the Jewish witnesses
would, for the first time, be cross-examined on the material nature of
the reported facts, bluntly and without discretion. I had noted, in
effect, that from 1945 to 1985, Jewish witnesses had been granted
virtual immunity. Never had any defense lawyer thought or dared to ask
them for material explanations about the gas chambers (exact location,
physical appearance, dimensions, internal and external structure), or
about the homicidal gassing (the operational procedure from beginning
to end, the tools employed, the precautions taken by the executioners
before, during and after execution).
On rare occasions, as at the trial of Tesch, Drosihn and
Weinbacher,[5] lawyers formulated some unusual questions of a material
nature, hardly troublesome for the witness, but these always found
themselves on the fringes of the more fundamental questions which
should have been asked. No lawyer ever demanded clarifications on a
weapon which, indeed, he had never seen and that no one had ever shown
him. At the major Nuremberg Trial of 1945-46, the German lawyers had
manifested total discretion on this point. At the proceedings against
Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, the lawyer Dr. Robert Servatius had not
wanted to raise the question; in a letter on this subject dated June
21, 1974, he wrote me: "Eichmann hat selbst keine Gaskammer gesehen;
die Frage wurde nicht diskutiert; er hat sich aber auch nicht gegen
deren Existenz gewandt" [Eichmann himself had not seen any gas
chamber; the question was not discussed; but neither did he raise the
issue of their existence].[6]
At the Frankfurt Trial of 1963-65, the lawyers showed themselves to be
particularly timid. I should mention that the atmosphere was rather
inhospitable for the defense and the accused. This show trial will
remain as a blot on the honor of German justice as on the person of
Hans Hofmeyer, initially Landgerichtsdirektor, then Senatspräsident.
During more than 180 sessions, the judges and juries, the public
prosecutors and the private parties, the accused and their attorneys,
as well as the journalists who had come from around the world,
accepted as a complete physical representation of the 'crime weapon' a
mere map of the camp of Auschwitz and a map of the camp of Birkenau,
whereupon five minuscule geometric figures were inscribed for the
location of each of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, with the
words, for Auschwitz: "Altes Krematorium", and for Birkenau:
"Krematorium II", "Krematorium III", "Krematorium IV", and
"Krematorium V"! These maps[7] were displayed in the courtroom.
The Revisionists have often compared the Frankfurt trial with the
1450-1650 trials against witchcraft. Nevertheless, at least during
those trials, someone sometimes bothered to describe or depict the
witches' sabbath. At the Frankfurt trial, even among the lawyers who
made difficulties for a witness like Filip Müller, not one asked of a
Jewish witness or a repentant German defendant to describe for him in
greater detail what he was purported to have seen. Despite two
judicial visits to the scene of the crime at Auschwitz, accompanied by
some German lawyers, it seems not one of the latter insisted on any
technical explanations or criminological expertise regarding the
murder weapon. To the contrary, one of them, Anton Reiners, a
Frankfurt lawyer, pushed complacency to the point of having himself
photographed by the press while raising the chute cover by which the
SS supposedly sprinkled Zyklon B granules into the alleged Auschwitz
gas chamber.
And so at Toronto in 1985, I had fully decided to do away with these
anomalies, to break the taboo and, for starters, pose, or rather have
Douglas Christie pose, questions to the experts and Jewish witnesses
as one normally poses in every trial where one is supposed to
establish whether a crime has been committed and, if so, by whom, how
and when.
Fortunately for me, Ernst Zündel accepted my conditions and Douglas
Christie consented to adopt this course of action and to pose to the
experts and witnesses the questions that I would prepare for him. I
was convinced that, in this manner, all might change, and the veil
woven by so many false testimonies could be torn away. While I was not
counting on Ernst Zündel's acquittal and we were all resigned to
paying the price for our audacity, I nevertheless had hope that with
the aid of this far-sighted man of character, and thanks to his
intrepid lawyer, history, if not justice, would at last carry him into
historical prominence.
From the moment of the first cross-examination, a tremor of panic
began to creep its way amid the ranks of the prosecution. Every
evening and throughout most of the night, I would prepare the
questions to ask. In the morning, I would turn over these questions,
accompanied by the necessary documents, to lawyer Doug Christie who,
for his part and with the aid of his female collaborator, conducted
the essentially legal aspects of the effort. During the
cross-examinations, I maintained a position close to the lawyer's
podium and unremittingly furnished, on yellow notepads, supplementary
and improvisational questions according to the experts' and witnesses'
responses.
The expert cited by the prosecution was Dr. Raul Hilberg, author of
The Destruction of European Jews. Day after day, he was subjected to
such humiliation that, when solicited in 1988 by a new prosecutor for
a new trial against Ernst Zündel, Prof. Hilberg refused to return to
give witness; he explained the motive for his refusal in a
confidential letter wherein he acknowledged his fear of having to once
again confront the questions of Douglas Christie. From the
cross-examination of Dr. Raul Hilberg, it was definitively brought out
that no one possessed any proof for the existence either of an order,
a plan, an instruction, or a budget for the presumed physical
extermination of the Jews. Furthermore, no one possessed either an
expertise of the murder weapon (whether gas chamber or gas van), or an
autopsy report establishing the murder of a detainee by poison gas.
However, in the absence of evidence regarding the weapon and victim,
did there exist witnesses of the crime?
A testimony must always be verified. The usual first means of
proceeding to this verification is to confront the assertions of the
witness with the results of investigations or expert opinion regarding
the material nature of the crime. In the case at hand, there were
neither investigations, nor expertise relative to the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers. Here is what made any cross-examination
difficult. Yet, this difficulty should not serve as an excuse, and one
might even say that a cross-examination becomes ever more
indispensable because, without it, there no longer remains any way of
knowing whether the witness is telling the truth or not.
Jewish Witnesses Finally Cross-Examined:
Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba
For those persons interested in the technical and documentary means by
which we were nevertheless in a position to severely cross-examine the
two principal Jewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Dr. Rudolf Vrba, I
can do no better than to recommend a reading of the trial
transcript.[8] Pages 304-371 cover the questioning and
cross-examination of Arnold Friedman; the latter breaks down on pages
445-446 when he ends by acknowledging that he in fact saw nothing,
that he had spoken from hearsay because, according to him, he had met
persons who were convincing; perhaps, he added, he would have adopted
the position of Mr. Christie rather than that of these other persons
if only Mr. Christie had been able to tell him back then what he was
telling him now!
Dr. Vrba was a witness of exceptional importance. One might even say
about this trial in Toronto that the prosecution had found the means
of recruiting 'Holocaust' expert number one in the person of Dr. Raul
Hilberg, and witness number one in the person of Dr. Rudolf Vrba. The
testimony of this latter gentleman had been one of the principal
sources of the famous War Refugee Board Report on the German
Extermination Camps - Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in November
1944 by the Executive Office of President Roosevelt. Dr. R. Vrba was
also the author of I Cannot Forgive,[9] written in collaboration with
Alan Bestic who, in his preface, declares with regard to him:
"Indeed I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense trouble he
took over every detail; for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect
he revealed for accuracy." (p.2).
,Never perhaps, had a court of justice seen a witness express himself
with more assurance on the Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, by the end of
the cross-examination, the situation had reversed itself to the point
where Dr. R. Vrba was left with only one explanation for his errors
and his lies: in his book he had, he confessed, resorted to "poetic
license" or, as he was wont to say in Latin, to "licentia poetarum"!
In the end, a bit of drama unfolded: Mr. Griffiths, the prosecutor who
had himself solicited the presence of this witness numero uno and yet
now apparently exasperated by Dr. Vrba's lies, fired off the following
question:
"You told Mr. Christie several times in discussing your book I Cannot
Forgive that you used poetic license in writing that book. Have you
used poetic license in your testimony?" (p. 1636).
The false witness tried to parry the blow but prosecutor Griffiths hit
him with a second question equally treacherous, this time concerning
the number of gassing victims which Vrba had given; the witness
responded with garrulous nonsense; Griffiths was getting ready to ask
him a third and final question when suddenly, the matter was cut short
and one heard the prosecutor say to the judge:
"I have no further questions for Dr. Vrba" (p. 1643).
Crestfallen, the witness left the dock. Dr. Vrba's initial
questioning, cross-examination and final questioning filled 400 pages
of transcripts (pp. 1244-1643). These pages could readily be used in
an encyclopedia of law under a chapter on the detection of false
witnesses.
The Prosecution Gives up on Calling Witnesses
Three years later, in 1988, during the second trial against Ernst
Zündel, the public prosecutor deemed it prudent to abandon any
recourse to witnesses. Canadian justice had apparently understood the
lesson of the first trial: there were no credible witnesses to the
existence and operation of the 'Nazi gas chambers'.
Little by little, every other country in the world has learned this
same lesson. At the trial of Klaus Barbie in France, in 1987, there
was talk about the gas chambers of Auschwitz but no one produced any
witnesses who could properly speak about them.[10] The attorney
Jacques Vergès, courageous yet not foolhardy, preferred to avoid the
subject. This was a stroke of luck for the Jewish lawyers who feared
nothing so much as to see me appearing at the side of Mr. Vergès. If
this gentleman had accepted my offer to counsel him, we in France
might have been able to strike a tremendous blow against the myth of
the gas chambers.
All the while in France, during several revisionist trials, Jewish
witnesses sometimes came to evoke the gas chambers but none of them
testified before the court as to having seen one or having
participated in a homicidal gassing by hauling bodies out of the 'gas
chambers'.
Today, gas chamber witnesses are making themselves extremely scarce
and the Demjanjuk trial in Israel, which once again has revealed how
much false testimony is involved in the matter, has contributed to the
suppression. Several years ago, it happened that I was aggressively
questioned at the rear of a law court by elderly Jews who presented
themselves as "living witnesses to the gas chambers of Auschwitz",
showing me their tattoos. It was necessary for me only to ask them to
look me in the eyes and to describe for me a gas chamber that
inevitably they retorted:
"How could I do this? If I had seen a gas chamber with my own eyes I
would not be here today to speak with you; I myself would have been
gassed also."
This brings us back, as one can see, to Simone Veil and her
declaration of May 7, 1983, about which we already know what we should
think…
Topaz
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
Topaz
struggle), by Hans Hinkel:
"Faster than lightening a lie about us spread throughout the country,
spread in every attic room where poor people lived by newspapers owned
or obedient to the opponent. It took a week of work by us National
Socialists to deal with a three-line lie in an opposing newspaper. As
soon as one lie was dealt with, a hundred more sprang up. Like a
hydra, the opponent's horror stories about National Socialism and its
supporters spread. There was not a speech by the Führer or his
associates that was not immediately twisted and tastefully served up
to the gullible Michael at breakfast or dinner. Adolf Hitler had "spat
out the communion wafer." Hermann Göring was smuggling opium or
morphine. Robert Ley has "lost a 'v'" in his name Pastor Münchmeyer
was guilty of "moral crimes" in Borkum. We often would have laughed
had we not hourly learned the amazing gullibility of millions of
German citizens who were trapped in the enemy's web of lies. The only
answer was for everyone to set to work with the people, going
everywhere to fight, speak and educate. Sooner or later the opponent
would have to face us and be revealed as a liar to the public."
"The city was like an upset anthill on that cold winter night. Roland
Freisler ran out from the chattering council meeting and went with us
to the nearby Friedrich Square where we spoke with the starving
masses. We forgot the middle class niceties! We had to stop Moscow
from winning over these citizens driven crazy by hunger, making them
wiling subjects of the insane ideas of Bolshevism"
"Only a few weeks later, I needed an escort to leave or return to my
apartment. Several loyal S.A. men had to be with me all the time,
since Communist unemployed men, unscrupulously incited against us
National Socialists, wanted to attack me now that they knew who I was.
Every day I joined the unemployed who demonstrated in the large
courtyard of the labor office on Giesberg Street. More than once I had
to be met by party members at the Kassel train station to protect me
from lurking Communist terror troops. It was the same or worse for all
of our prominent Kassel party members and S.A. men, just as for the
storm troops of our movement who risked their lives every day and
every hour in every city and every village of Germany. The enemy
naturally was particularly after us speakers. According to the law, we
had to be unarmed. We would have been in deep trouble if a body search
had found a weapon! A nail file was thought to be a weapon. Later even
a party badge, since it had a long needle!"
"The attempts of our party comrades to hold a National Socialist
meeting failed a half dozen times or more. Most meetings were made
impossible by the thousand-fold numerical superiority of the opponent,
or else broken up before they could finish. Our protective service
-every party member in each local group belongs - is still too weak in
most areas to stand up against the red avalanche, driven more and more
by the Communists. One National Socialist against five hundred or even
a thousand citizens, that is how it always is there!"
"After I had spoken about twenty minutes, a worker jumped up on a
table and called upon the "comrades" to leave the meeting of the
"Fascist band." Several dozen start singing the "Internationale" and
we have no choice but to overpower the growling of the comrades with
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles." Another several hundred leave
the hall. The singing quieted down and peace was slowly restored. I
spoke to several hundred people at the end, all that were left of the
more than a thousand who were there to start."
"For years now we speakers have been traveling through every Gau in
Germany. I speak primarily in Saxony, Brandenburg, Hessen-Nassau and
in the West. We see that even red Saxony is streaming more and more to
National Socialism. The meetings are difficult, but always
successful."
"For how long? When would this hard battle end? When would more
Germans wake up? When would hundreds of thousands finally be ready to
march into battle behind the banner of National Socialism?! - None of
us thinks about the "when." Forward! - Only forward! Each heart won
over is a victory! The day will come...!"
Topaz
"Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the
English in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely
strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth - not in gold bars
in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift
and energy of the work people, the conditions of life they enjoy.
Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the
factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room,
recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is
needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social
conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind which you
lack."
About Douglas Reed:
"I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and
author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected
before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled
and completely forgotten person.
Why was he "forgotten"?
It was simply because he wrote about "The Jewish Question!"
International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem
with total censorship, so that his new books could no longer be
printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores
and even from the library shelves.
After a short period of slandering he was no longer mentioned at all
in the world's media.
As the author Ivor Benson (who has himself written a book on this
subject: The Zionist Factor) says in the foreword to Douglas Reeds
masterpiece The Controversy of Zion, which had to wait 22 years before
it could be published, "the adversity, which Reed encountered, would
have made a lesser personality give up. But not he"."
Knud Eriksen
Topaz
>
>BS, Liberals think the State be supreme. Hence Hillary's motto:
>
Hillary wants to invade Iran, because Iran is "right wing" and not
controlled by Jews.
Sen. Clinton Calls Iran a Danger to U.S., Israel
The Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2498 03,00.html
Calling Iran a danger to the US and one of Israel's greatest threats,
US senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no
option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation. "US
policy must be clear and unequivocal, we cannot, we should not, we
must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the
Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters ... Clinton spoke at a
Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the
US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700
supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish
state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference
last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.
Topaz
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
Topaz
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>And in fact, when Hitler came to power, socialists, communists and
>trade unionists (who Hitler saw as socialist) were the first sent off
>to the camps.
Hitler was for Socialism. People were sent to the camps for being
dangerous Communists. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
3779 Dead
wrote:
Hitler was real big on promises, wasn't he? But as soon as he had
power, off the workmen went, to the camps! Unions were banned, and
only those willing to accept the wages imposed by the factory owners
kept what little freedom there was.
Topaz
wrote:
>Hitler was real big on promises, wasn't he?
And on delivering on them.
> But as soon as he had
>power, off the workmen went, to the camps!
First, they were not workmen before he had power, they didn't have
jobs before he had power. Second, the concentration camps were for
dangerous Communists and other scum. Third, the Jews control your
media and your mind.
> Unions were banned, and
>only those willing to accept the wages imposed by the factory owners
>kept what little freedom there was.
Hitler replaced the communist unions with something better. And
factory owners could not just pay people as little as they wanted. It
wasn't capitalism. It was good for people and also fair to factory
owners. And as a reminder, the Jews control your media and your mind.
billbe...@gmail.com
was a dictatorship. The United States is a socialist country, as are
all the great ones Sweden, Great Britain, and France. That is why
people from capitalist countries such as Asia/Mexico want to come
here. That is why virtually all factories want to set up there, so
the owners can exploit the workers at will. Roosevelt was so admired,
thats why Roosevelt almost single handily got us in the war in
Germany. Everybody is pro-Israel, they want to form a small country
of jewish persons. Sounds like a good idea to me. Einstein truly
believed in socialism, that is why he wrote "Why Socialism".
Topaz
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:26:56 -0500, Topaz
><mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:52:05 GMT, 3779 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hitler was real big on promises, wasn't he?
>>
>>And on delivering on them.
>
>Let me hear again about that "Thousand year Reich"
>
Obviously he would have delivered if at all possible. The problem is
the small size of Germany compared to the hugeness of the Jewish
controlled countries, the USA and the USSR.
The Germans made radio broadcasts to America from Berlin. This is part
of what they said: "The world today is divided into two camps. On the
one side Bolshevism, and on the other the forces for civilization. Why
is America on the wrong side?"