The Bush-Hitler (Republican-Nazi Parties) Comparison is Fair
Ruf Twohy
In Memory of Wladyslaw Szpilman
Nazism was a form of government that restricted personal freedom but
permitted private
ownership of property. It called for aggressive nationalism,
militarism and expansion of
Germany's spheres of control through military conquest. The Nazis
glorified Germany and its
people, claiming that other nationalities were inferior. It promised
to build a harmonious,
orderly and prosperous society for the Germans.
Instead it brought terrorism, war and mass murder.
The Nazi agenda was largely based on the premises of Adolph Hitler's
book Mein Kampf. In his
book, Hitler stated his beliefs and ideas for Germany's future, which
included plans to
overthrow regimes of countries he perceived to be dangerous to
Germany's security or had
natural resources needed to fulfill its destiny as the most powerful
nation on earth.
Nazism did not gain wide support in Germany until the worldwide
business slump of 1929.
Discontented Germans then turned to Nazism in increasing numbers
because it promised economic
help, political power and national glory.
The Nazis' organization, discipline and financial backing from wealthy
industrialists, who
feared Communism, soon made them a force with which to contend. Many
upper-class Germans feared
loss of power and property would be a result of the newly formed
democratic government, which
they suspected might levy taxes in order to redistribute wealth. The
farmers, middle and
laboring classes were attracted to the promise of social reform, which
they believed was badly
needed after the excesses and moral lassitude of the Roaring Twenties.
Powerless people
responded to their ideas of national superiority and strength. The
military supported Hitler's
ideas of discipline, order and increased funding through rearmament.
Hitler began to assemble some of the people who would help him rise to
power. They included:
Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist;
"We do not want a second catastrophe along the lines of (hidden date
XXXX). We depend not on
the grace of our enemy, rather on military might."
"He knows that we are waging this war for a better peace, that we are
fighting for the
happiness of people who have so often been oppressed by their
governments."
"No power in the world will make us deny our duty, or forget even for
a moment our historical
task of maintaining the freedom of our people."
Hermann Goering, who became second in command to Hitler;
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders
of the country who
determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the
people along whether it's a
democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of
patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the SS;
"Unconditional and highest freedom of will," Himmler instructed his
SS, "comes from obedience,
from service to our world view, obedience which is prepared to render
each and every sacrifice
to pride, to external honor and to all which is dear to us personally,
obedience which never
falters but unconditionally follows every order which comes from the
Führer or legally from
superiors..."
and Ernst Rohm, the chief of the SA;
"The people want wholesome dread. They want to fear something. They
want someone to frighten
them and make them shudderingly submissive."
In the July, 1932 election for the Reichstag (parliament) the Nazis
received nearly 38% of the
vote, making it the largest political party in Germany but not the
majority party. Leaders of
the other parties offered Hitler Cabinet posts in exchange for Nazi
support but he refused to
accept any arrangement that did not make him chancellor (prime
minister) of Germany The
majority of the people did not want Hitler to become chancellor and
had serious misgivings
about him. But in June of 1933, President von Hindenburg was persuaded
by his friends to name
Hitler chancellor. Hitler, in turn, promised to act lawfully. He
promised to restore the German
economy; assure education and work for all; and lead Germany to
greatness.
On February 27, a fire began that destroyed the Reichstag building.
Many historians believe
that it was planned by the Nazis. Although a full investigation was
never conducted, the Nazis
quickly blamed the Communists. A pro-Communist Dutch anarchist was
found at the site and
admitted that he had set it.
President von Hindenburg then signed an emergency decree that gave the
government unprecedented
power. The Nazis moved to control all police authority in Germany,
including the right to
arrest and hold people without formal charging on suspicion of
treason, which served to erode
German civil rights.
Hitler promised to rid Germany of Communists and other "enemies", such
as the Jews, on whom he
blamed Germany's troubles. "By defending myself against the Jews, I am
doing the Lord's work",
he wrote.
On March 23, 1933, the Nazi-dominated Reichstag passed a law "for the
removal of distress from
the people and the state". The law, known as the Enabling Act, in
effect suspended basic civil
and human rights in Germany. Hitler then began to destroy the
Constitution through outwardly
legal means.
By mid-July 1933, the Gestapo (secret state police) was hunting down
enemies and opponents of
the government. People were jailed or shot on suspicion alone.
The Nazis used the press, radio and films to flood Germany with
propaganda praising the 'New
Order', Hitler's term for his reordering of German society and for his
plans to reorder the
rest of Europe. Germans citizens were kept in a constant state of fear
that their country might
be attacked by its enemies. Complete faith in the judgment of the Nazi
leaders was the
measuring stick of devotion to one's country and national pride was
the noblest of virtues.
Initially, the rest of the world and the German intelligentia regarded
Hitler alternately as a
bully or a buffoon. However, Hitler had the common touch. His
popularity within Germany grew,
despite the flagging economy, especially after the Reichstag fire.
More and more, the German
people trusted in him implicitly to protect Germany and lead it to
greatness.
The citizens of Germany were encouraged to turn to God and prayer for
comfort and strength
during these troubling times.
"... a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is
built on air; consequently,
all character training and religion must be derived from faith. From
our point of view as
representatives of the state, we need believing people. A dark cloud
threatens from Poland. We
have need of soldiers, believing solders. Believing solders are the
most valuable ones. They
give their all."
- Adolf Hitler, The German Churches Under Hitler: Background,
Struggle, and Epilogue by Ernst
Helmreich, page 121.
Hitler also felt he had a personal relationship with God and saw God
as his aid in ruling the
German Reich:
"Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of
that text was proved if
one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and
which since then has been
in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself.
Its own strength is the
source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that
in it and through it we
may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have
not had the blessing of
the Almighty -- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do,
holds in His hands the
final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward,
let us never forget the
duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through
God's powerful aid we have
become once more true Germans."
-Adolf Hitler,March, 1933
The Nazis used racial profiling to target the Jews. Thousands were
sent to prison camps along
with other political suspects. A network of spies kept watch on the
German people and
maintained an atmosphere of terror. Judges and courts continued to
function but most of the
judges either had been appointed by Nazis or were subservient to them.
The regime applauded military training and armament. The German
military forces were to be
supported without question as the defenders of Germany's safety and
greatness. Those who
protested were accused of a lack of patriotism. In 1933, Germany
withdrew from the League of
Nations because the League would not change the arms limitations
imposed upon Germany at the
end of World War I.
After 1933, Hitler prepared Germany for war with little or no
opposition from the members of
the Reichstag. The Nazis' goal was to establish Germany as the world's
leading power. No nation
acted to stop him so his plans became ever bolder. First he invaded
Austria, then in 1939, he
invaded the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia in disregard of
the protestations of other
European countries. After each success, he planned a new take-over.
On September 1, 1939, Hitler stated that, "The Polish State has
refused the peaceful settlement
of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in
Poland are persecuted with
bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of
the frontier, intolerable
to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect
the frontier of the Reich.
In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to
meet force with force
from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and
the vital rights of
reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier,
mindful of the great
traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that
he is a representative
of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and
our Reich!"
Without provocation, Germany then invaded Poland, a sovereign country
that could not defend
itself and was no threat whatsoever to German national security,
overrunning it just a few
weeks. Thousands upon thousands of Polish soldiers were killed in the
defense of their
homeland. Millions of Polish civilians also met their deaths as a
result of the German
invasion.
"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware
the people around us are
of what is really happening to them." -- Adolf Hitler
*
Laurie Manis is a member of Military Families Speak Out and was a
plaintiff in the anti-law
suit against President Bush that was dismissed last month by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court.
She is the widow of a Viet Nam veteran and the mother of a Navy
Reservist.
http://www.huppi.com/politics/articles/brief_nazi_history.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ike Milligan
"Ruf Twohy" <rtw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8668682.04011...@posting.google.com...
> By Laurie Manis
> In Memory of Wladyslaw Szpilman
>
> Nazism was a form of government that restricted personal freedom but
> permitted private
> ownership of property. It called for aggressive nationalism,
> militarism and expansion of
> Germany's spheres of control through military conquest. The Nazis
> glorified Germany and its
> people, claiming that other nationalities were inferior. It promised
> to build a harmonious,
> orderly and prosperous society for the Germans.
>
> Instead it brought terrorism, war and mass murder.
>
Gogarty
accordiond...@mindspring.com says...
>
>
>>
>Yakkity Yak Yakkity Yak Zzzzzzz.
>
neptune3
>By Laurie Manis
>In Memory of Wladyslaw Szpilman
>
>Nazism was a form of government that restricted personal freedom
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.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that 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 sympathise 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 Communist 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 disolve 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 decadant as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
> but
>permitted private
>ownership of property. It called for aggressive nationalism,
>militarism and expansion of
>Germany's spheres of control through military conquest.
This is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
"When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and
finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the
moral right arise, from the need of the people to acquire foreign
territory. The plough is then the sword; and the tears of war will
produce the daily bread for generations to come."
Hitler was not unethical but rather very realistic. Lebenstraum
was also the reason Japan tried to expand in the far east. The United
States did a lot of expanding also and now has a healthy portion of
the earths surface with a lot of good farmland.
The problem is over-population. I don't agree with lebenstraum
but only because I have found a better way. National Socialism is
still obviously the best political party that ever existed. The
improvement over lebenstraum is my plan on how to deal with the
problem of over-population. Here is my plan:
If overpopulation is not a problem now it probably will be in
the future. In places like India they are already overpopulated.
Overpopulation means suffering and misery and is something we need
to avoid. We can't have the population keep doubling forever without
running out of food and having other problems that would make life
miserable for millions of people.
We will someday need to limit the number of people being born and
we should do this in the best and most rational way. This means we
should not do it on a voluntary basis. If it were done voluntarily the
best people would not reproduce while the people who don't care about
anything would. On a voluntary basis the most intelligent and caring
people would not reproduce, while the inferior people who don't care
about anything would produce more people who don't care about
anything. Intelligence is hereditary and a sane policy would see to it
that it is the intelligent people who reproduce. The choice is between
a great world in the future or a pathetic catastrophe for our future.
Today the White race is not reproducing enough to keep our race at the
present numbers. Dealing with overpopulation on a voluntary basis is a
big mistake. We must see the situation as it is and deal with the
facts of the matter. How will a voluntary program work on
unintelligent libertines who couldn't care less about the problem?
If the population of a nation is not too big than we would not
have to implement any program. But if the population becomes a serious
problem we should sterilize some of the people. This does not entail
misery and suffering as a food shortage would. The people would be
educated by the media that they are doing a great service to the
nation and they should be treated honorably. They would not be harmed
or allowed to starve to death because there isn't enough jobs for
them, which is some peoples answer to the problem. We don't need to
depend on wars to reduce the population. We can end misery and
suffering in the world, but we must realize we need a plan to keep the
population from always doubling.
When the population of a nation becomes a serious problem we
should reduce the number of births for example by 10%. We should then
have the fair and just method of testing everyones IQ and those who
score in the lowest 10% should be sterilized. We could keep it
confidential and do whatever we can eliminate hardships. But this
would be fair to all. Everyone has a chance to score high on the test.
There can be no allowances for the rich or the famous.
The population problem would then be solved. It would be done
justly and fairly and with the best future for mankind as the result
and as our goal.
>The Nazis
>glorified Germany and its
>people, claiming that other nationalities were inferior.
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
> It promised
>to build a harmonious,
>orderly and prosperous society for the Germans.
>
>Instead it brought terrorism
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:
We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.
Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.
The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.
Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.
No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.
It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.
We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.
Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.
If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"
That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.
As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.
At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.
Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.
The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.
Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.
In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."
Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"
Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platorm I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where there
were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised by
what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.
>, war
England's Guilt
by Joseph Goebbels
It is a major error to assume that England's plutocrats slipped into
the war against their will or even against their intentions. The
opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all
the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They
surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal
other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and
this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.
Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the
Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not
support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian
reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help
of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any
measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring
clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of
aggression against Germany.
The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was
traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always
directed its main military might against Germany. It never could
tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by
claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.
Today there is still another reason. The English warmongers conceal
it. It is crassly egotistic. The English prime minister announced the
day the war began that England's goal was to destroy Hitlerism.
However, he defined Hitlerism in a way other than how the English
plutocracy actually sees it. The English warmongers claim that
National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure
against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger
for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality,
however, there is another reason for England's war with Germany. The
English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to
conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England
controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has
never threatened English interests.
So when Chamberlain says that England wants to destroy Hitlerism in
this war, he is in one sense incorrect. But in another sense, he is
speaking the truth. England does want to destroy Hitlerism. It sees
Hitlerism as the present internal state of the Reich, which is a thorn
in the eye of English plutocracy.
England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's
state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest
land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact
the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of
this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished,
socially enslaved and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter
of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs.
Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is
there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums.
Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of
it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly
brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate from making
major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve
capitalist democracy.
Capitalism democracy suffers from every possible modern social
ailment. The Lords and City people can remain the richest people one
earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting
their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own
country.
Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and
modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English
plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy
Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that
have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly
fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English
capitalism.
That is why England declared war on Germany. Since it was accustomed
to letting others fight its wars, it looked to the European continent
to find those ready to fight for England's interests. France was ready
to take on this degrading duty, since the same kind of people ruled
France. They too were ready for war out of egotistic reasons. Western
European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that
rules the world. It declared war on German socialism because it
endangered their capitalist interests.
A similar drama began in 1914. England had more luck during those four
and a half years than it is having today. Europe's nations had no
chance to see what was happening. The nations of Europe today have no
desire to play the same role they played during the World War. England
and France stand alone. Still, England is trying once again to wage
war without making any personal sacrifice. The goal is to blockade
Germany, to gradually bring it to submit by starvation. That is
longstanding English policy. They used it successfully in the
Napoleonic wars, and also during the World War. It would work now as
well, if the German people had not been educated by National
Socialism. National Socialism is immune to English temptations.
English propaganda lies no longer work in Germany. They have gradually
lost their effectiveness in the rest of the world as well, since
German propaganda today reaches far beyond its borders. This time,
English plutocracy will not succeed in driving a wedge between the
German people and their leadership, though that is their goal.
The German nation today is defending not only its honor and
independence, but also the great social accomplishments it has made
through hard and untiring work since 1933. It is a people's state
built on the foundation of justice and economic good sense. In the
past, England always had the advantage of facing a fragmented Germany.
It is only natural that English plutocracy today seeks to split the
German people and make it ripe for new collapse.
English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper
names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people,
only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England
was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England
wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people. But that did not
stop English plutocracy from brutally and relentlessly suppressing the
Boers after that war or the Germans after our defeat.
A child once burned is twice shy. The German people were once victims
of lying English war propaganda. Now it understands the situation. It
has long understood the background of this war. It knows that behind
all English plutocratic capitalism's fine words, its aim is to destroy
Germany's social achievements. We are defending the socialism we have
build in Germany since 1933 with every military, economic and
spiritual means at our disposal. The bald English lies have no impact
on the German people.
English plutocracy is finally being forced to defend itself. In the
past, it always found other nations to fight for it. This time, the
English people must themselves risk their necks for the lords and City
men. They will meet a unified German people of workers, farmers and
soldiers who are prepared to defend their nation with every means at
their disposal.
We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy
forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have
to pay for it.
The whole world is waking up today. It can no longer be ruled by the
capitalist methods of the 19th Century. The peoples have matured. They
will one day deal a terrible blow to the capitalist plutocrats who are
the cause of their misery.
It is no accident that National Socialism has the historical task of
carrying out this reckoning. Plutocracy is collapsing intellectually,
spiritually, and in the not too distant future, militarily. We are
acting consistently with Nietzsche's words: "Give a shove to what is
falling."
>and mass murder.
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponants 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 absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Critics of the Leuchter report have tried to explain this by
saying it takes more cyanide to kill lice than humans and the "gas
chambers" were in ruins. But 1050 mg/kg is still a lot more than the
max of 7.9. And they 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 Gemans 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 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...
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 recieved 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 sentanced 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
thoughout 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 thoughout
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 prominant 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.
Montgomey 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."
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 knowledges. 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 Führer'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 Führer 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 he
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."
National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
in regard to free speach laws. The only difference was the right was
in power instead of the left. Before Hitler was in power he had a lot
of his papers banned, and when he was in power he also banned things.
Even today most countries do not have free speech. In leftist Germany
today people get arrested for doubting the holo story and other
things. People in Britain get arrested for politically incorrect
speech or writting. Saying that the races are not all equal in
intelligence is against the law there.
The United States has the most free speech but even here it has
banned things. At one time the play "Merchant of Venice" was banned in
New York because it offended the Jews. People in America were arrested
for their beliefs during WWII. All countries did that.
But the United States does have the most free speech and this was a
great idea. Hitler also had a great idea of removing the Jews from
controlling the media. If we could combine these two ideas we could
have a winning combination. Allowing free speech is not the same as
allowing one unelected group to virtually control all of the media.
The media is the real power, and a minor post such as President of the
United States is like nothing by comparison. Why are we voting for
President and not voting for who will control the media? When it comes
to owning TV stations it is only money that talks, not morality or
virtue.
In the Jews country, which Americans are giving billions of
dollars to, they don't allow non-Jews to own certain media.
National Socialism was mainly about things like making Germany for
the Germans, and rejecting both Communism and Capitalism. But Free
Speech is also a great idea. National Socialists today should make it
clear that Free Speech is sacred and that no party should be allowed
to change that.
Here is part of Hitler's speech on April 1, 1939 in Wilhelmshaven:
"They say we have no right to do this or that. I should like to raise
the counter-question: What right, for example, has England to shoot
down Arabs in Palestine just because they defend their homeland; who
gives them this right?
Anyway, we have not slaughtered thousands in Central Europe but
instead we have regulated our problems with law and order.
However, I should like to say one thing here: The German people of
today, the German Reich of today is not willing to surrender life
interests, it also is not willing to face rising dangers without doing
something about them.
When the Allies, without regard or purpose, right, tradition, or even
reasonableness, changed the map of Europe, we had not the power to
prevent it. If, however, they expect the Germany of today to sit
patiently by until the very last day when this same result would again
be repeated - while they create satellite States and set them against
Germany - then they are mistaking the Germany of today for the Germany
of before the war.
He who declares himself ready to pull the chestnuts out of the fire
for these powers must realize he burns his fingers.
Really, we feel no hatred against the Czech people. We have lived
together for years. The English statesmen do not know this. They have
no idea that Hradcany castle was not built by an Englishman but by a
German and that the St. Vitus Cathedral likewise was not erected by
Englishmen but that German hands did it.
Even the French were not active there. They do not know that already
at a time when England still was very small a German Kaiser was paid
homage on this hill [Hradcany castle]-that one thousand years before
me the first German King stood there and accepted the homage of this
people.
Englishmen do not know that. They could not know that and they do not
have to know it. It is sufficient that we know it and that it is true
that this territory lay in the living space of the German people for
over a thousand years.
Despite this, however, we would have had nothing against an
independent Czech State if, first, it had not suppressed Germans, and,
second, if it had not been intended as the instrument of a future
attack on Germany. When, however, a former French Air Minister writes
in a newspaper that on the basis of their prominent position it is the
task of these Czechs to strike at the heart of German industry with
air attacks during war, then one understands that this is not without
interest to us and that we draw certain conclusions from it.
It would have been up to England and France to defend this airbase.
Upon us fell the task of preventing such an attack at all events. I
sought to accomplish this by a natural and simple way.
When I first saw that every effort of that kind was destined to be
wrecked and that elements hostile to Germany again would win the upper
hand, and as I further saw that this State had long since lost its
inner vitality - indeed, that it already was broken to pieces - I
again carried through the old German Reich. And I joined together
again what had to be united because of history and geographical
positions, and according to all rules of reason.
Not to oppress the Czech people! It will enjoy more freedom than the
suppressed people of the virtuous nations.
I have, so I believe, thereby rendered peace a great service, because
I have rendered innocuous in time an instrument which was destined to
become effective in war against Germany. If they now say that this is
the signal that Germany now wants to attack the entire world, I do not
believe that this is meant seriously: such could only be the
expression of a bad conscience.
Perhaps it is rage over the failure of a far-flung plan, perhaps it is
an attempt to create tactical preconditions for a new policy of
encirclement.
Be that as it may: it is my conviction that thereby I have rendered
peace a great service and out of this conviction I decided three weeks
ago to name the coming party rally the 'Party Convention of Peace.'
For Germany has no intention of attacking other people. What we,
however, do not want to renounce is the building up of our economic
relations. We have a right thereto and I do not accept any condition
from a European or a non-European statesman.
The German Reich is not only a great producer but also a gigantic
consumer, just as we as a producer will be an irreplaceable trade
partner, so as a consumer we are capable of honorably and fairly
paying for what we consume.
We are not thinking about making war on other peoples. However, our
precondition is that they leave us in peace.
In any case the German Reich is not ready everlastingly to accept
intimidation or even a policy of encirclement."
>the protestations of other
>European countries. After each success, he planned a new take-over.
>
>On September 1, 1939, Hitler stated that, "The Polish State has
>refused the peaceful settlement
>of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in
>Poland are persecuted with
>bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of
>the frontier, intolerable
>to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect
>the frontier of the Reich.
>In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to
>meet force with force
>from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and
>the vital rights of
>reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier,
>mindful of the great
>traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that
>he is a representative
>of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and
>our Reich!"
>
>Without provocation, Germany then invaded Poland, a sovereign country
>that could not defend
>itself and was no threat whatsoever to German national security,
The Germans lost some land to Poland after World War One. The
Germans said that their people living on this land were being severely
oppressed by the Polish goverment. This is why Germany fought Poland .
If Florida were taken away from America, Americans would fight to get
it back. Americans will go to war for far less reason than this.
Britain and the other liberal countries then went to war with
Germany even though the Communists also attacked Poland. After they
won the war, Poland was Communist, which shows what the liberals were
fighting for.
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note
of March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a
peaceful solution of the problem of the Corridor?
Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German
note. Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency
all along the German frontier, similar to the technique to which the
Jews later introduced the British in Palestine. Day after day the
British public was deluged with war propaganda and misrepresentation
of the situation. Finally their minds were closed against any further
regard to the demands of justice and reason by a new slogan, "You
cannot trust Hitler's word." With this lie the British public was
finally stampeded into throwing all reason and judgement to the winds
and accepting at their face value the war propaganda in the press.
This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler's
assurance given on more than one occasion after a "putsch" such as
that in into Sudetenland, that he "intended to make no further
demands.". The misrepresentation lay in the fact that the press
steadily obscured the major fact, that the "demands" to which Hitler
referred were all along five-fold in character; and covered those five
areas taken from Germany by a dictated peace in which the population
was overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia,
parts of Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.
As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I
believe, accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no
additional demands to make. But here it must be clearly stated in the
interests of justice that he never said that this entailed reducing
the demands which he had originally very clearly delineated, and
repeated on many occasions, namely, the five areas in question.
"The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that
when Hitler said he had no further demands, that there had never been
any statement of his full demands, some of which were still
unfulfilled. They were led to believe that Hitler either never had had
other demands, or that he had abondoned the rest as soon as he had
obtained some of them. When, therefore, the next installment was
added, the press built on this misunderstanding the fallacy that
Hitler's word could not be trusted. Honest dealing needs no such
trickery and and deception. Such methods are only necessary to bolster
up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we have the calm and
disspassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person than the
late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his
last speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: "If the
principle of self-determination had been applied in Germany's favour,
as it was applied agaisnt her, it would have meant the return of the
Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Polish Corridor and
Danzig to the Reich."
Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which
was foisted upon the British public in 1939: and it is the true one.
Small wonder that these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary
citizen.
Had the British public realized the truth, that each of these
demands of Hilter rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the
people of this island would have ruled out any question of war; and it
was war, not truth or justice, upon which international Jewry was
resolved."
Here is another quote from the book:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."
>overrunning it just a few
>weeks. Thousands upon thousands of Polish soldiers were killed in the
>defense of their
>homeland. Millions of Polish civilians also met their deaths as a
>result of the German
>invasion.
Here are some parts of a speech by Adolf Hitler in Berlin on October
6, 1939:
"There would have been no difficulty for us in breaking the resistance
of Warsaw between the 10th and 12th of September, just as we finally
broke it September 25-27, only that in the first place I wanted to
spare German lives and in the second place I still clung to the hope,
misdirected though it was, that the Polish side might for once be
guided by responsible common sense instead of by irresponsible lunacy.
But in this instance we were once more confronted with the spectacle
which we had witnessed before on the largest possible scale.
The attempt to convince the responsible Polish command - in so far as
it existed - that it was futile and in fact insane to attempt
resistance, especially in a city of more than a million inhabitants,
proved entirely fruitless. A 'generalissimo,' who himself took to
inglorious flight, forced upon the capital of his country a resistance
which could never lead to anything but its destruction.
Since it was realized that Warsaw's fortifications alone were not
likely to withstand the German attack, the entire city was converted
into a fortress and barricaded in every direction. Batteries were
mounted in every square and great courtyard, thousands of machine-gun
posts manned and the whole population called up to take part in the
fighting.
Sheer sympathy for women and children caused me to make an offer to
those in command of Warsaw at least to let civilian inhabitants leave
the city. I declared a temporary armistice and safeguards necessary
for evacuation, with the result that we all waited for emissaries just
as fruitlessly as we had waited at the end of August for a Polish
negotiator. The proud Polish commander of the city did not even
condescend to reply.
To make sure, I extended the time limit and ordered bombers and heavy
artillery to attack only military objectives, repeating my proposal in
vain. I thereupon made an offer that the whole suburb of Praga would
not be bombarded at all, but should be reserved for the civilian
population in order to make it possible for them to take refuge there.
This proposal, too, was treated with contempt on the part of the
Poles. Twice I attempted to evacuate at least the international colony
from the city. In this I finally succeeded after great difficulties,
in the case of the Russian colony, actually at the last moment. I then
ordered a general attack on the city for September 25.
The same defenders who at first considered it beneath their dignity
even to reply to my humane proposals, made on grounds of humanity,
then very rapidly changed face. The German attack opened on September
25, and Warsaw capitulated on the 27th...."
"A great deal of self-control was needed to keep calm in face of these
simply shameless insults, in spite of the fact that we knew that the
German armed forces could destroy and sweep away the whole of this
ridiculous State and its army within a few weeks.
But this attitude, for which the Polish leaders themselves were
responsible, was the fundamental reason why the Polish Government
refused even to discuss the German proposals.
Another reason was that fatal promise of guarantee given to the State
which, although not menaced at all, very rapidly became convinced it
could afford to challenge a Great Power without risk once it was
assured of the support of two Great Powers, perhaps even hoping this
way to lay the foundation for realization of all its own insane
ambitions.
For, as soon as Poland felt certain of that guarantee, minorities
living in that country had to suffer what amounted to a reign of
terror. I do not consider it my task to speak of the lot of the
Ukrainians, or White Russian population, whose interests now lie in
the hands of Russia.
However, I do feel it my duty to speak of the lot of those helpless
thousands of Germans who carried on the tradition of those who first
brought culture to that country centuries ago and whom the Poles now
began to oppress and drive out. Since March, 1939, they had been
victims of truly satanic terrorization. How many of them had been
abducted and where they are cannot be stated even today.
Villages with hundreds of German inhabitants are now left without men
because they all have been killed. In others women were violated and
murdered, girls and children outraged and killed. In 1598 an
Englishman - Sir George Carew - wrote in his diplomatic reports to the
English Government that the outstanding features of Polish character
were cruelty and lack of moral restraint.
Since that time this cruelty has not changed. Just as tens of
thousands of Germans were slaughtered and sadistically tormented to
death, so German soldiers captured in fighting were tortured and
massacred.
This pet lapdog of the Western democracies cannot be considered a
cultured nation at all.
For more than four years I fought in the great war on the Western
Front, but such things did not happen on either side.
Things that have occurred in Poland, in the past few months, and
especially the last four weeks, constitute flaming accusations against
those responsible for the creation of a so-called State lacking every
national, historical, cultural, and moral foundation. Had only 1 per
cent of these atrocities been committed in any part of the world
against the English people, I should be interested to see the
indignation of those gentlemen who today in hypocritical horror
condemn the German or Russian procedure.
No! To grant guarantees to this State and this Government as was done
could only lead to appalling disasters. Neither the Polish Government,
nor the small cliques supporting it, nor the Polish nation as such
were capable of measuring the responsibilities which were implied in
such guarantees in Poland's favor by half of Europe.
The passionate sentiment thus aroused, together with the sense of that
security which had been unconditionally guaranteed to them, counted
for the behavior of the Polish Government during the period between
April and August this year.
It was also the cause of the attitude they adopted toward my
conciliatory proposals. The Government rejected these proposals
because they felt themselves protected, or even encouraged, by public
opinion and public opinion protected them and encouraged them on their
way because it had been left in ignorance by its Government and
particularly because in its every action it felt itself sufficiently
protected from without.
All this led to an increase in the number of appalling atrocities
committed against German nationals in Poland and to the rejection of
all proposals for a solution and in the end to the steadily growing
encroachments on actual Reich territory. It was quite comprehensible
that such a state of mind interpreted German longsuffering as a
weakness, that is, that every concession on Germany's part was
regarded as proof of the possibility of some further aggressive steps.
A warning given Poland to refrain from sending Danzig any more notes
amounting to ultimata and above all to desist from economic
strangulation of that city did not ease the situation in the least; it
resulted, in fact, in complete stoppage of all Danzig means of
communication.
The warning to suspend or at least to take steps against the unceasing
cases of murder, ill treatment and torture of German nationals in
Poland had the effect of increasing these atrocities and of calling
for more bloodthirsty harangues and provocative speeches from the
Polish local administrative officials and military authorities.
The German proposals aiming at a last-minute agreement on a just and
equitable basis were answered by a general mobilization. The German
request that an intermediary should be sent, founded on a proposal
made by Great Britain, was not complied with and on the second day was
answered by an offensive declaration.
Under these circumstances it was obvious that if further incursions
into the Reich's territory occurred, Germany's patience would be at an
end. What the Poles had erroneously interpreted as weakness was in
reality our sense of responsibility and my firm determination to come
to an understanding if that at all was possible.
Since they believed that this patience and longsuffering was a sign of
weakness which would allow them to do anything, no other course
remained than to show them their mistake by striking back with the
weapons which they themselves had used for years.
Under these blows their State has crumbled to pieces in a few weeks
and is now swept from the earth. One of the most senseless deeds
perpetrated at Versailles is thus a thing of the past.
If this step on Germany's part has resulted in a community of
interests with Russia, that is due not only to the similarity of the
problems affecting the two States, but also to that of the conclusions
which both States had arrived at with regard to their future
relationship.
In my speech at Danzig I already declared that Russia was organized on
principles which differ from those held in Germany. However, since it
became clear that Stalin found nothing in the Russian-Soviet
principles which should prevent him from cultivating friendly
relations with States of a different political creed, National
Socialist Germany sees no reason why she should adopt another
criterion. The Soviet Union is the Soviet Union, National Socialist
Germany is National Socialist Germany."
>
>"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware
>the people around us are
>of what is really happening to them." -- Adolf Hitler
>
>*
>
>Laurie Manis is a member of Military Families Speak Out and was a
>plaintiff in the anti-law
>suit against President Bush that was dismissed last month by the
>Massachusetts Supreme Court.
>She is the widow of a Viet Nam veteran and the mother of a Navy
>Reservist.
>
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
neptune3
>By Laurie Manis
>In Memory of Wladyslaw Szpilman
>
>Nazism was a form of government that restricted personal freedom
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
Ike Milligan
"Gogarty" <Gog...@Dublin.edu> wrote in message
news:lfmdnbUYe4v...@bway.net...
It was about history. Little said about today. Of course the implication was
that today is just like yesterday. If so, it's a recipe for boredom.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
Ike Milligan
"neptune3" <np...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bge30010ub6ou70ri...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Jan 2004 00:44:14 -0800, rtw...@hotmail.com (Ruf Twohy) wrote:
>
> >By Laurie Manis
> >In Memory of Wladyslaw Szpilman
> >
> >Nazism was a form of government that restricted personal freedom
>
> 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.
>
negatively when the impossibility is pointed out.
> 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.
>
Maybe. I haven't read it. You say it promotes legalizing prostitution and
homosexuality?
> 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.
> This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
> who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
> should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
> its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that 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.
>
So individual freedom would result in heroin being sold in the Piggly
Wiggly?
> 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 sympathise 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.
>
And I want freedom form stupidity.
> The Communist 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 disolve the
> government and have an anarchy.
>
>
And??
> 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 decadant as they want. They are like
> the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
>
So how will you prevent the bad future?
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
neptune3
<accordiond...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>The right is for doing things that are impossible and then reacting
>negatively when the impossibility is pointed out.
Not so. Why did you say it?
>
>> 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.
>>
>Maybe. I haven't read it. You say it promotes legalizing prostitution and
>homosexuality?
Yes
>So individual freedom would result in heroin being sold in the Piggly
>Wiggly?
Of course. Otherwise there would have to be a law against selling
heroin at Piggle Wiggly.
>And I want freedom form stupidity.
>
>And??
>
>> 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 decadant as they want. They are like
>> the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
>>
>So how will you prevent the bad future?
Paul Revere
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:45:07 GMT, "Ike Milligan"
><accordiond...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The right is for doing things that are impossible and then reacting
>>negatively when the impossibility is pointed out.
>
> Not so. Why did you say it?
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>Maybe. I haven't read it. You say it promotes legalizing prostitution and
>>homosexuality?
>
> Yes
The Wiccan Rede itself is only 2 lines:
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill,
An' in it harm none, do what ye will.
It means you have the freedom to do as you will as long as you harm no other.
Since homosexuality and prostitution in and of themselves harm no one, there
should be no law against these activities or any other that harm no one.
Perversion, on the other hand, *might* involve harm to others and thus might
be outlawed (pedophilia, for example, or rape).
Some drugs hold potential harm, but only to those who take them. If taking a
drug harms no other, it should be legal. This does not mean driving under the
influence would be considered a harmless activity.
>
>>So individual freedom would result in heroin being sold in the Piggly
>>Wiggly?
>
> Of course. Otherwise there would have to be a law against selling
>heroin at Piggle Wiggly.
Better pharmacutical grade heroin at know doseage for pennies at Piggle Wiggly
to profit the government than blackmarket heroin of unknown quality and dosage
in the alley behind Piggle Wiggly for so much money that the user had to steal
to afford his fix with profits from the exchange funding terrorism.
>>And I want freedom form stupidity.
You and everybody else. Too bad this is the *real* world.
Your heart is in the right place, but the devil is in the details.
The cause of mental retardation is not necessarily genetic and could be caused
by environmental factors encountered before or after birth. Most offspring of
couples with low IQ's (in the 50- 70 range) are of normal intelligence. So
what is the rational for sterilizing those with low IQs?
IQ tests currently test only math and verbal skills (results can be influenced
by amount of sleep prior to testing, nutrition levels, and state of health),
what about other types of skills like artistic, musical, athletic, etc. which
are ignored by IQ tests?
Who decides when the IQ test is "fair" and no longer discriminates against the
poor and those from other cultures?
Why not sterilize predatory criminals instead?
Why not offer financial rewards for volunteering for sterilization instead?
Forced sterilization of some citizens by other citizens is anathema to a
society that values individual freedom. Of course, if you view people as mere
clogs in the machinery of state, then it might make sense.
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001 (quoted in NewsMax.com 2/1/02)