Activism Discussion: The Third Reich

The Third Reich
Posts: 14

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Topaz
2006-03-11 21:57:22 EST
By Walter Ruthard

I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.

This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens…

Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children…

Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them…

The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe… The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash…

My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village…

Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down…

It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.

There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.

Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35…

Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.

If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers…In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.


And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.

That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.


http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

Tim Howard
2006-03-19 01:58:52 EST
Topaz wrote:

Topaz wrote:

> By Walter Ruthard

(Now I don't know who he is, but this article I believe appeared in a
publication called the Barnes Review. It is run by Willis Carto, a
holocaust denyer and American neo-nazi publishing ultra-right-wing
papers for 50 years. Keep that in mind.)

>
> This was but one of the many programs the government established in

> order to improve the quality of life for its citizens…
>

Various examples of Nazi social/economic reforms sniped.

As I said in a previous posting debate, I do not deny these early
positive aspects of the Reich. As I mentioned several analysts have
said Hitler's economics early on more closely resembled Keynesenism than
national socialism. But they were only for the benefit of ethnic
Germans who shared the nazis beliefs (I'm not saying that others did not
also benefit economically, but that was at best unintentional).

Let's look more closely at what was behind all this success. One of the
reasons unemployment was so low was women was incouraged/coerced into
leaving the workforce to become mothers, and thus they were not longer
counted in the unemployment stats. There jobs were given to aryan men.
Another reason was Jews had their citizenship revoked and many lost
their jobs, but now were also not counted in unemployment stats, along
with the poorer peasant class of Jews. Easy to have low unemployment
when you don't count everyone who is unemployed--kinda like how the U.S.
has been keeping tabs on the unemployed since Reagan took office.
Inflation was high in Germany due to currancy manipulation, and this was
only offset later by gold and other resources looted from the nations
Hitler invaded. Not all bad economic results could be covered up
however. As William Shirer (1959) said, the cost of living in the
pre-WWII years went up 25% but real wages decreased slightly.

> The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
> "Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
> believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe… The
> Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
> where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
> pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
> other interpretation is plain hogwash…
>
Here is the truth about Lebensborn--the program to breed and
indoctronate children for the "master race".

"Hitler's Children"
Newsweek International, March 20, 2000
By Joshua Hammer

From the time she was a small child, Helga Kahrau always sensed that
she was different. Born in Nazi Germany at the start of World War II,
Kahrau has hazy memories of elegant surroundings, important-looking men
in crisp uniforms, a life of privilege and comfort. Helga's mother, she
knew, had been a secretary in the offices of both Hitler's top aide,
Martin Bormann, and Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, but other
than admitting that fact, Mathilde Kahrau refused to say anything about
the war. It was only after Mathilde's death in 1993 that Helga began to
examine her family's past,and was horrified by what she discovered.

Her parents barely knew one another. An ardent Nazi, her mother met
Helga's father, a German Army officer, in Berlin at a party celebrating
Hitler's conquest of France in June 1940. They had a one-night stand,
and nine months later Mathilde gave birth in a "Lebensborn",or "Source
of Life",home outside Munich. The home was one of several set up by
Heinrich Himmler's dreaded SS to care for unmarried pregnant women whose
racial characteristics,blond hair, blue eyes, no Jewish ancestry,fit the
Nazis' Aryan ideal. At birth, Helga was anointed as one of the Fuhrer's
elect, part of a generation of "racially pure" children who would
populate the German Empire as it ruled a conquered Europe for the life
of the 1,000-year Reich.

Helga's early years unfolded in an atmosphere of palpable evil. When she
was 6 months old, her mother returned from Munich to work in Goebbels's
ministry in Berlin, and dispatched Helga to the foster care of a
high-ranking Nazi secret policeman. She grew up in a Nazi enclave
outside the city of Lodz in occupied Poland while her foster father
helped to oversee the gassing of thousands of Jews at the nearby Chelmno
concentration camp. At the end of the war she returned to Munich, then a
bomb-shattered ruin, where she was raised for the first time by her
natural mother. Now, as she fits together the pieces of the first years
of her life, Helga admits to being tormented by feelings of
self-loathing. "I spent the first four years raised and tutored by the
Nazi elite," she says. "I was involved, in a fundamental way, with
murderers."

Kahrau and thousands of other middle-aged Europeans are struggling with
the consequences of one of Nazism's most troubling social experiments:
the creation of a "Master Race." During the 12-year history of the Third
Reich, roughly 10,000 infants were born in Lebensborn homes in Germany.
An equal number were born in homes in Nazi-occupied Norway after the
German invasion of 1940, because Himmler admired the Norwegians' "Viking
blood," and encouraged procreation between German soldiers and Norwegian
women. There were also Lebensborn homes in France, Belgium and
Luxembourg. After the war, many of the Lebensborn children grew up
scorned as Nazi progeny and tormented by dark uncertainties about their
origins. Those who tried to get answers were often stymied by Germans
long reluctant to confront their Nazi past. Their natural or foster
parents often kept mum about the Lebensborn program; the German media
didn't report on Himmler's racial experiments for decades. The
destruction of thousands of German Lebensborn files by SS troops during
the last days of World War II deepened the mystery of the children's
real identities.

But recently some of the 20,000 Lebensborn children have been getting
answers. Last December, German TV reporters uncovered 1,000
long-unnoticed Lebensborn files at the German government archive in
Berlin, and two Norwegian Lebensborn organizations are now helping many
local war children trace their parents. For many Lebensborn children,
the revulsion they feel as they learn more about their backgrounds often
goes together with a sense of relief at assembling the missing fragments
of their lives. "They have reached the end of their careers, their
children are grown and they have time to think about who they really
are," says Georg Lilienthal, a German scholar who in 1985 wrote the
first authoritative book about Himmler's racial-engineering program.
"For many it has been nothing but a black hole."

Himmler planned it that way. The Lebensborn homes sprang from a central
tenet of Nazi ideology: the idea that no Germanic baby should go unborn.
In 1933 the newly installed Nazi dictatorship outlawed all abortions and
later executed doctors who violated the law. In August 1936 Himmler
opened the first Lebensborn home at Steinhöring outside Munich, offering
Aryan women a place where they could deliver their illegitimate babies
and keep the births secret from the outside world. Himmler's SS built
nine such homes in Germany,refurbished hotels, villas, ski chalets and
schools,and 10 in Norway. The identities of the mothers were recorded in
tightly guarded Lebensborn files, which the SS kept separate from
municipal and church ultimately decided to keep their babies, but
hundreds,out of shame or financial necessity,turned the children over
for adoption by high-ranking SS officials, or abandoned them.

Himmler considered no method too extreme in the pursuit of his lunatic
goal: the propagation of the Germanic master race. The SS also kidnapped
Aryan-looking children from Poland and other occupied lands and brought
them to the Lebensborn centers across the Third Reich, where they were
"Germanized" and turned over to Nazi foster parents. SS administrators
expelled Lebensborn babies who were born disabled,and sometimes
dispatched them to euthanasia clinics, to be poisoned or starved to
death. Wehrmacht commanders exhorted lower-ranking soldiers serving in
Norway to father as many children as possible, and many Norwegian women
were eager to oblige them. Himmler also offered promotions to SS
men,Nazi zealots who served as Hitler's bodyguards, ran concentration
camps and massacred "racially inferior" people in occupied lands,on the
basis of the number of offspring they produced. The SS chief took a keen
interest in the day-to-day running of homes in Norway and Germany,
conducting inspection tours and even devising a high-protein diet for
the Lebensborn children.

By the spring of 1945, the 1,000-year Reich was in ruins, and with it,
Himmler's master-race baby program. The collapse of the Nazi regime
would have lasting consequences for thousands of now adrift small
children and infants. As the Allies swept across Germany in the spring
of 1945, the SS hurriedly shut down one Lebensborn home after another,
collecting hundreds of remaining babies and their secret files and
taking them to the original home in Steinhöring. In early May, American
troops marched into Steinhöring. According to one account, Nazi Storm
Troops burned all the records in a huge bonfire before they fled. In
another version of the story, U.S. forces stopped the Nazis as they
tried to escape to the mountains. During the confrontation, the files
were dumped into the Isar River and washed away. Either way, the true
identities of many children were lost forever.

The fate of the children would be cruelest in Norway. The SS never
destroyed the Lebensborn files there, but after the Third Reich
capitulated on May 8, 1945, thousands of Lebensborn babies and their
mothers faced the wrath of their liberated countrymen. Many women and
their kids were harassed, beaten and called "Nazi swine" by teachers,
schoolmates and neighbors. Police sent some 14,000 women and girls who
had slept with Wehrmacht soldiers to internment camps. The head of
Norway's largest mental hospital stated that women who had mated with
German soldiers were "mental defectives" and concluded that 80 percent
of their progeny must be retarded.

Paul Hansen bore that label for decades. The progeny of a brief affair
between a Luftwaffe pilot and a cleaning woman who abandoned her child
at birth, Hansen, 57, spent his first three years in relative comfort in
a Lebensborn home north of Oslo. But his life took a terrible turn after
the war, he says, because of his German parentage. Hansen was moved to a
collection center for unclaimed Lebensborn children. An epileptic, he
was passed over for adoption and was thrown together with 20 other
Lebensborn children at this center who could not find homes with
relatives or adoptive families. Ministry of Social Affairs officials
classified these half-German children as retarded and shipped them to
mental institutions. Hansen recalls days of being insulted and beaten by
guards, and remembers nights spent in feces-splattered dormitories
listening to the psychotic screams of fellow inmates. "I told them 'I'm
not insane, let me out'," Hansen says. "But nobody listened." Hansen
didn't get his freedom until he was 22 years old.

He found a tiny apartment and a job in a factory,and began a search for
his parents. The Lebensborn files in Norwegian archives were off-limits,
but through the help of the Salvation Army in Norway, he learned that
his father had died in Germany in 1952. His mother had married another
Wehrmacht soldier and lived in the East German town of Pasewalk. In
1965, Hansen traveled by train and ferry to see her, and remembers the
excitement he felt as he approached her flat. But the reunion was a deep
disappointment. "I expected she would open up her arms to me, and say
'Oh, my son.' But she didn't care," he remembers. "When I told her that
I had spent my life in mental institutions, she replied, 'So what? You
weren't the only one'." Hansen left, and never went back.

In recent years, Hansen has found a measure of peace. He was briefly
married, but the relationship broke up because, after years in
institutions, he found it impossible to share space with another person.
What has made life endurable, he says, is the growing willingness of
Norwegian Lebensborn children to go public and confide in one another
about their experiences. Hansen says he's found "new brothers and
sisters" through his membership in a support group; the recent
declassification of the Lebensborn files has allowed many to discover
their parentage. Last month Hansen joined six other Lebensborn in a
lawsuit filed against the government, asking for millions of dollars in
damages for decades of brutal treatment. On New Year's Eve, Norway's
prime minister seemed to acknowledge his government's responsibility by
apologizing publicly for the first time for "the harassment and
injustice done" to the war children.

Helga Kahrau has never found such peace. Growing up with her mother
Mathilde in Munich, Kahrau often wondered about her origins. "I was big,
blond and Aryan,different from the southern Germans,and everyone asked
me, 'Where did you come from?' " she says. "I couldn't answer them."
Kahrau's mother concealed the truth, saying only that her soldier father
had been killed during World War II. Her only birth record was a cryptic
certificate from an "SS Mother Home" that contained her mother's name
but not her father's. Her mother kept largely silent about her own role
during the war. "Nobody talked about the Nazis back then," Helga says.

Then, one night in the mid-1970s, Helga happened to watch a German
television documentary about the Lebensborn program and the SS-run home
at Steinhöring. Suddenly, she says, "everything clicked." Still, she
asked her mother nothing: "I was afraid. I didn't want a confrontation."
But when Mathilde Kahrau died in 1993, Helga traveled to Pullach, near
Munich, the onetime home of her foster parents and the current site of
the postwar German intelligence headquarters. There she uncovered Nazi
files that provided detailed information about her foster father and his
crimes committed in the service of the "final solution." She spent hours
in libraries, digging up the little scholarship that existed about the
Lebensborn. The last pieces fell into place on her birthday in March
1994, when she received a phone call from a man who identified himself
as her real father.

Kahrau was shocked. "I said, 'Why are you calling me after 53 years?' "
In his 80s and stricken with cancer, he explained that his thoughts had
returned to the daughter he had fathered during the war. They met the
next day. "He was charming," she says. "It was love at first sight." He
told Helga about the night of passion with her mother, about his
military duty in occupied Paris,and his postwar real-estate career. "He
had become a millionaire," Helga says. As her father's health worsened,
she nursed him round the clock, expecting to receive some share of his
estate. But after her father died in 1996, Kahrau received a letter from
attorneys stating that he had left no will. As an illegitimate
Lebensborn child, she would inherit nothing. "All I got were debts," she
says.

In the four years since then, Kahrau has found some solace talking with
a psychologist friend about her upbringing. She has visited her
birthplace, the old Lebensborn home at Steinhöring, several times. But
Kahrau hasn't yet come to terms with her identity. Unlike Norway, no
support groups exist in Germany for Lebensborn children, nor has she
found a willingness to confront the issue in German society. Kahrau
still worries that people will assume she's a Nazi because "I grew up on
the side of the murderers," she says. Meeting a NEWSWEEK correspondent
at a hotel in downtown Munich, she was visibly nervous, tensing when the
word "Lebensborn" was uttered too loudly and insisting on speaking about
her life only in the privacy of a secluded booth. "Being a Lebensborn
child is still a source of shame," she admits. That shame is the Nazis'
bitter legacy to those who they once thought would inherit the earth.

> Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
> democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
> one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
> wasn't nailed down…


Probably true to some extent. This is what happens in war, terrible as
it is. Perhaps you can justify Hitler's invasion of all those nations
in Europe and what the Nazi's did to their peoples.

>
> It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
> least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
> democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
> plebiscite.

Oh sure, I believe those results. In another posting debate, Topaz had
the audacity to suggest that Hitler's re-election with 99% of the vote
was legit. The above ignorant statement, like the aforementioned,
speaks for itself.

> There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
> one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
> who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
> daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
> never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
> treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
> took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
> including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
> wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
> slave laborer.


I cannot comment on the level of legitimacy of the above story (I doubt
anyone else can either, since it is probably one of those "lost to
history" type of events), but pro-nazi foreign workers were probably
treated well in Germany. There were many Poles who were anti-semetic
and welcomed the Nazi invasion. Anti-nazi foreigners were not so lucky.

> Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
> and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
> performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
> more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
> the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
> they are 35…
>
And how many students are in Universities until they are 35? These
types of broad generalizations are too obviously false to merit an
argument. Perhaps not everyone should get a free university education,
but not all people with "good marks" were "promoted" back then, only
aryans. Under the Third Reich, higher education, as well as all other
levels of German education was used for Nazi propaganda.


Topaz
2006-03-19 12:23:00 EST
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:58:52 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.howard@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>(Now I don't know who he is, but this article I believe appeared in a
>publication called the Barnes Review. It is run by Willis Carto, a
>holocaust denyer and American neo-nazi publishing ultra-right-wing
>papers for 50 years. Keep that in mind.)
>
>
>Various examples of Nazi social/economic reforms sniped.
>
>As I said in a previous posting debate, I do not deny these early
>positive aspects of the Reich. As I mentioned several analysts have
>said Hitler's economics early on more closely resembled Keynesenism than
>national socialism. But they were only for the benefit of ethnic
>Germans who shared the nazis beliefs (I'm not saying that others did not
>also benefit economically, but that was at best unintentional).
>
>Let's look more closely at what was behind all this success. One of the
>reasons unemployment was so low was women was incouraged/coerced into
>leaving the workforce to become mothers,

Being mothers is the best job for women. Having more White children
should be our highest goal:


Paul Craig Roberts
December 7, 2000

For whom the bells toll
There won't always be an England or a United States. Both are already
fading, not from military conquest but from their own immigration
policy. Demographers have calculated that by the end of this century
the English people will be a minority in their homeland. The English
are not having enough children to reproduce themselves. In contrast,
the "people of color" who have flooded into England have a high
fertility rate. Non-whites will comprise a majority of the population
of London in just nine years.
It is amazing how fast it is happening. Half a century ago, there were
only a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the entirety of Great
Britain. In another half century, there will be the beginnings of a
black government. What will be the fate of the white minority after
decades of being demonized as "white racists" by their own kind at
Oxford, Cambridge and the University of London?
The English may be finished as a people, but they still have twice as
long as American whites. Demographers predict that whites will
comprise a minority of the U.S. population by mid-century. It has
already happened in California and in many cities.
Like the English, American whites are failing to reproduce. More than
42 percent of American women of childbearing age are childless. The
figure is rising as gender quotas, and the breakdown of marriage and
family pull more white women onto career paths that don't lead to
children.
Examining the situation, the London Observer said that that this is
"the first time in history that a major indigenous population has
voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or
disease."
It is amazing that the two most important and powerful countries of
the past two centuries have legislated their own path to extinction.
But it is astounding that it is occurring in the same two countries
where intellectuals prattle on endlessly about the need for diversity.
There are many more non-white countries than white ones; yet, it is
the white ones that are slated to disappear.
What's wrong with having an England? What a colorful and unique place!
What character and genius! The cradle of the rule of law and
representative democracy! The font of the scientific and technological
revolutions! It is absurd to think these accomplishments are
happenstance unrelated to Englishness. Do we really need yet another
black country, another India, or a mixture of the two? Why can't we
keep England English for diversity's sake?
And the United States. What other country has such a strong sense of
right and wrong, and such determination to see justice done all over
the world? Who but the United States sends its treasure, not as
tribute to the powerful but as gifts to the poor? What other country
sends its troops to stop genocides and wars in foreign lands? Central
and South America are full of Hispanic populations. Do we really need
another one here?
What is it that compels the United States and England to destroy
themselves with an immigration policy designed to replace the
indigenous population with different racial stock? In these two lands,
agitators fight to preserve every wetlands weed, sand fly and snail
darter. What's wrong with preserving England and America?
People had better give this some thought, because the decision won't
be theirs to make for much longer.
The 21st century may bring the extinction of white populations.
Confined to a small area of the world, white populations are
everywhere in decline. Italy, once a fecund Catholic nation where a
large family was everything, has such a low birth rate that its
population is declining. Everywhere else in Europe birth rates have
fallen below replacement rates. European governments open the borders
to Third World immigrants in order to keep a tax base for the
expensive social welfare systems that have crowded children out of the
household budgets of the indigenous population. Canada, also, is well
on her way to becoming a Third World country.
Russia, too, has a declining population reeling from the environmental
and economic destruction after 75 years of communist rule. Pressed on
her eastern and southern borders by Asiatic populations, Russia is
slowly retreating from her empire.
In the far Pacific, two island nations, New Zealand and Australia,
hang on to an exported British culture. Perhaps they will be
preserved, like the Galapagos Islands, as a place where creatures
reside who have disappeared elsewhere.

>and thus they were not longer
>counted in the unemployment stats.

They should be considered employed and they should get pay checks
just like policemen and others who do thier part for the nation.

>There jobs were given to aryan men.
> Another reason was Jews had their citizenship revoked and many lost
>their jobs,

Jews are not Germans. Jews don't belong in Germany. Jews are
enemies.

From: Thrasher

Subject: Individuals Cannot Stand Against Organized Jews

All countries which have been the homelands of European-derived
peoples are under attack from the same place. The attack is not from
all sides; it is only one group that is orchestrating this attack.

The goal of the recent change in immigration policies is to dilute the
White race in all these countries by importing millions of third world
minorities. These minorities are used to create diversion and
conflict, which is the atmosphere that the Jewish mafia thrives in.
Jews control our media, our universities, our finances, and they use
their enormous ill-gotten gains to bribe or intimidate or sue into
submission anyone that opposes them.

We have only ourselves to blame, as we are the nations that turned on
Germany for trying to fight off their Jewish oppressors. Now it is
becoming obvious even to the most blind that the Jews have us all by
the throats and they intend to destroy western civilization from
within. Immigration is just one of their weapons.

They use political correctness and the pretense of minority rights to
punish anyone who speaks out against this illegal subversion of our
governments. The Muslim problem is no more than a reaction to the
support of Israel from England, the USA, and other Western nations.
The Muslims know what the Jews are and who can blame them for fighting
in any way they can.

The real terrorists have become our own governments which are being
controlled by the Jewish race. They are a race/nation/religion and
they work together as a group, while Whites are individuals.
Individuals cannot stand against organized crime. As long as we are
so afraid of being called a racist to even talk about this subject, we
will remain enslaved and it will just get worse.

Already in the USA, it is Whites who are having trouble getting good
jobs. Jews run all media, most government, financing, and
universities. They use affirmative action and quotas to put
unqualified blacks and browns into many jobs, while they take all the
top jobs. Whites are squeezed from the top and the bottom.

Some Whites of course are still doing very well being politically
correct and serving the Jews. These race traitors are worse than the
Jews themselves. Without their cooperation the Jews would be easily
removed and could not control the world.

Look to your central banks. The Bank of England is not English! The
Jews have been in control of England since 1694, and they have
steadily increased their control until now they are strong enough to
force the English into slavery. That is where their control comes
from.

The Federal Reserve in the USA makes from 150 to 300 billion a year
and it is all tax-free. This is a privately owned bank that has
never been audited. It is unconstitutional and it now is the most
powerful branch of government and it is mostly owned by foreign Jewish
bankers. This is just the crack, as they use this money to get
control of Wall Street and most of the large corporations of the USA.

There is no place to run and there is no place to hide. We are the
prey and they are the predators and until you realize this you are
like the fawn in the land of the hyena. As long as we refuse to open
our eyes and our mouths, we will be little more than food for the Jews
and our children will be even weaker and fewer, until the great light
of our race is extinguished from the earth.

> but now were also not counted in unemployment stats, along
>with the poorer peasant class of Jews. Easy to have low unemployment
>when you don't count everyone who is unemployed--kinda like how the U.S.
>has been keeping tabs on the unemployed since Reagan took office.
>Inflation was high in Germany due to currancy manipulation,

Before Hitler you must mean.

> and this was
> only offset later by gold and other resources looted from the nations
>Hitler invaded.

Hitler was not very interested in gold.

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

They claim to be fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as
the currency basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their
hands. We, too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us.
When I came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...

I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it...

> Not all bad economic results could be covered up
>however. As William Shirer (1959) said, the cost of living in the
>pre-WWII years went up 25% but real wages decreased slightly.


"THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH

...from the very beginning Shirer strongly condemns not only Hitler,
but
the whole of Germany as well. Setting the tone, and the mood, for the
entire book.

In Summary, and using various quotes, Shirer opens up his book saying
that "the German people... so wretched in the generality...Hitler was
the fate of Germany and this fate could not stayed...A thousand years
will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased... Those who do
not remember the past are condemned to relive it."

This indictment of Germany sets the tone for the entire book.

Could we consider this to be objetic historiography? Or should we
clasify it as propaganda. Using historical facts; selecting,
organizing and presenting them in such a way as to promote a given
viewpoint on life, and seeking to establish this viewpoint as a
permanent thing.

Within the historical context, at the time it was written, this is the
kind of book a Jewish Historian would have written. A Jew or somebody
who is closely connected with the Jews.

I have spent a few hours searching the internet to possible links
between Shirer and Judaism. I have found very little.

Thus here I am, asking: William L Shirer: =Jews? =Personaly related
to Jews? or =paid by Jews to put their ideas on print, camouflage as
official history?

His anti-nazi, pro Jew viewpoint is evident. Was that only a
reflecion of the mood of the times; Something that arouse from his
personal and intimate knowledge as a reporter in Germany; or did he
was
personally influenced in favor of the Jews.?

Does he recognizes his prejudice on this subject: explains where it
came from and then tries to be as objective as possible?

Webmaster


> Here is the truth

Here is the lie, you should say.

Here are some quotes from the German pamphlet "How they Lie" from
1940. The pamphlet has many pictures but the words alone are
interesting enough:
"For example, what would you say if a colleague of yours, whom you
regarded as a rival and who disliked you, were to spread the rumor
that your household is in disorder, that you murder small children and
rape defenseless women? Rest assured that in our country such a person
would soon be behind bars.
But the international politicians and journalists who slander entire
peoples in a shameless manner not only run around freely, they
impudently put on airs as the saviors of human culture. No lie is too
crude for them, no slander too vulgar-they understand their craft.
Even in World War I they knew how to incite hate with the help of
atrocity propaganda. We all recall those daily lies of the "German
barbarian" who, "like a wild beast rages over the earth and destroys
everything in hate and the fury of annihilation, who tortures children
and delights in the tears of mothers," as a foreign paper once wrote.
In war, man stands against man. Each serves the Fatherland in his own
way, and no soldier will deny the knightly convictions of a noble
opponent. Today, however, a cowardly gang of professional agitators
daily invents new lies and pictures from the safety of their desks.
How was the German soldier once depicted by enemy atrocity propaganda?
We all know them, for we had fathers, brothers, sons, and men out
there. For instance, on 20 March 1915, the newspaper "Le Rire Rouge"
published the following picture of the good German soldier:
A bloodthirsty murderer of women and children, a robber and plunderer,
who nourishes himself with sausages made from human flesh-that was how
it saw the brave and loyal German soldier.
Each of us knows what a crude and baseless lie this is. Every decent
person in the world should have known this. And yet: "Some of it will
always be believed, the stupid and gullible will never see through it
all" - so hope the political liars and slanderers.
We know what to think about this flood of slander flowing over the
German people. We heard the same things between 1914 and 1918. Then as
now, they are attempting to drive a wedge between leaders and people.
The goal of this propaganda is always the annihilation of Germany.
We are also familiar with the old lie about the desecration of
churches and shrines, which are once again in fashion with our
enemies.
This is the undamaged cathedral of Tschenstochau.
The picture of the Polish shrine of the Black Madonna, with the German
soldiers in the foreground, was taken after its alleged destruction by
German bombers.
While the lying and yellow press of the entire world and the enemy
transmitters were inventing hypocritical stories about the presumed
destruction of the holy shrine, the Prior of Tschenstochau wrote the
above letter to the German military authorities that clearly testifies
that the monastery and holy shrine were untouched.
Thus the lie regarding supposed German attack could be immediately
exposed. The English Ministry of Advertising has had nothing to say
since.
In reality, these lies are ancient. Our enemies always babble about
violated sanctuaries, persecuted priests, murdered children and
tortured women in order to prejudice the world against Germany and to
arouse the impression that the world must be defended against "the
barbarians who are threatening human culture."
The picture above is taken from a leafet dated 19 August 1914. The
same lie was used back then. Supposedly the Germans had attacked the
monastery at Jasno-Gora.
They always lied, they lie today, they lie, they lie.
There were countless numbers of these malicious pictures in World War
I. Today we see the new versions of this crude charge. Enemy radio
reports reports of drugged candy and poison gas-filled children's
balloons, with which German troops allegedly killed Polish children.
And our enemies decided to spread this vile slander in the exact
moment that the world heard from neutral journalists about the
unimaginable crimes perpetrated by the Polish on fellow German
countrymen. All of these neutral independent reporters saw and
corroborated the terrible atrocities against Germans with their own
eyes. In light of these proven facts, the shameless enemy presumes to
turn the tables and pin these murders on the Germans, declaring that
the murdered, whose names and addresses are known, are Poles.
They hate the Führer, because he exposes their lies and crimes.
They hate him, because he rescued the hard-working German people from
eploitation. How happy they would be to see the Führer and the entire
German people delivered into the dark machinations of the world
Jewry! It shows the impotence of the Jews, since all they can do is
drag a straw man through the streets and burn it.
What do these subhumans know about the joy of a genuine national
community? These warmongers are hard at work rousing the world against
Germany. How little they know about the indisoluble bond between
Führer and people that is so overwhelmingly clear in this picture:
The Führer speaks with German workers.
He knows that he can trust them, and they know that our cause is in
his good hands.
The enemy countries, who are so worried about the fate of the German
people, also worry about the S. A.
We have often seen them; we know how these men look. They are our
comrades, our colleagues in the workplace, our fathers, brothers, sons
and men.
Do they look like this? Since when are these imagined daggers the true
symbol of the S. A.? Once again some professional liar has taken his
pen in his hand.
They lie, they lie....
German men from all regions and occupations use their free time and
energy in regular practice, so they can be ready to serve the
community. When in the summer of 1939 the agricultural labor force was
too small to bring in the rich harvest, these men freely joined in to
help with the harvest, serving the homeland on peaceful fields. Why
does the enemy press, which loves to speak of its objective reporting,
never carry such pictures of Germany?
The more one examines their endless scribbling and radio news, the
clearer one sees that these expert liars have never spoken the truth,
not even once.
This time a newspaper really outdid itself. Here we see how a German
holiday is libeled.
Christmas and Nazi Winter Relief
We all know this picture. It is the Christmas celebration of a German
family that did not have the means by itself to celebrate this holiday
of love in the way the Führer wishes, in the way that every German
family should experience.
The NSV got involved.
Helpers, men and women, walked upstairs and downstairs, heard the
wishes of the needy, and provided gifts.
We all know the results. In any case, the 80 million people of the
greater German Reich know that the liar who drew the picture on the
previous page of an alleged German Christmas is not only a liar but
also an idiot. If the gentlemen wanted to lie, they should have at
least started out more intelligently, so that they were not found out
immediately.
What National Socialist Germany has done and continues to do for
working people is unique in the entire world.
The foreign plutocratic countries that are dominated by high finance
viewed this new and happy life with envy and ill-will. They never
ceased in their endeavor to compel this new Germany into war, to keep
it in the same miserable state it was in after the Treaty of
Versailles.
But Germany knows what it has to lose. And because it is stronger than
the rest of the world, it will end this struggle victoriously.
Mr. Churchill, English warmonger, First Lord of the Admiralty,
architect of the encirclement campaign had it easy in the fall of
1939.
When he decided to wage war against Germany, he selected four English
passenger ships that were sailing to America. Then he sent the above
telegram, dated 28 August 1939, to Cunard White Star Lines, compelling
them to turn German passengers away from these ships, as they would be
uncomfortable eyewitnesses. See the accompanying letter from the
shipping company, dated 29 August 1939. Churchill then sent suitable
"rescue ships" to be "coincidentally" on the course of these ships,
which were now loaded with Americans. The Athenia was torpedoed and
sunk. If the affair with the "Athenia" not worked, then one of the
other three ships would have been sunk,so that Mr. Churchill would
have more stories for the English Ministry of Lies.
We know the rest. The yellow press of the world blows Churchill's
lying horn obediently: a German submarine allegedly sank the
"Athenia."
But the evil, criminal escapade failed. Germany got hold of the
documents and exposed the criminals.
Once again, one of the vilest and most base of the English lies is
exposed.
The following story is perhaps the best way of showing the reality of
moneybags journalism, and how decent foreign journalists are forced to
invent lie afer lie.
A couple of months ago, a foreign journalist whose name we must hide
in order to protect his job, came to Germany. He wanted to see the
alleged "Nazi hell" with his own eyes, in order to give an eyewitness
account.
He saw workers who had jobs. He saw workers taking vacations with the
KdF. And he saw workers going to the theater. He saw the NSV's charity
for the poor. He saw and was amazed.
He had not expected to see that! How could he, knowing the truth,
continue to write lies and false atrocity stories about Germany, like
the financiers of his newspaper want it?...
In German camps, criminals and misfits live in clean and orderly
accommodations, receive sufficient nourishment and have enough time
for both work and play.
The foreign press reporter visited one of these camps.
The officials of the German concentration camp were outraged when they
later read his article.
The article talked about piles of corpses over which the poor reporter
had to climb, of moaning people in dark dungeons, of caning orgies and
other such imaginary atrocities.
The man had seemed so honest. How could he lie like that? What had
happened? The journalist wrote a letter to explain. He had written a
truthful account of what he had seen at the concentration camp.
But the owner of the newspaper switched everything around. Naturally
there are decent foreign papers that would never falsify the facts
like that, but we are not talking about them here.
The newspaperman begged the Germans not to take action against his
paper or the publisher who falsified the report, because then he would
lose his job.
That is how freedom of the press looks like in other countries; that
is how the lies and fairy tales come to be.
The Führer spoke about the criminal newspaper Jews and the war
profiteers, in his speech on 6 October. They order the journalists and
radio reporters around like schoolboys. These "servants of public
opinion" are not allowed to have convictions or express their true
opinions, and only a very few exceptions prove this rule. They must
lie and slander and blacken Germany and its Führer to keep the
gentlemen behind the plutocratic, moneybag policies in business.
But why do these newspaper moneybags lie so crudely, so stupidly, so
impudently? Why do they spread their slander all over Germany of all
places?
They lie because they are weak and Germany is strong. They lie because
they want to make money by going to war against Germany, even though
the people do not want to go to war and are scared to go to war
against a strong Germany...
Things are a thousand times better here. Things are more honest and
fair here than anywhere in the entire world.
Here we recognize the honor of the worker.
Here there is a right to work.
Here the moneybags are not in control...
In conclusion:
We will not be confused by the lies of the foreign countries! We know
what we are fighting for!



http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

Tim Howard
2006-03-20 02:14:12 EST
Topaz wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:58:52 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.howard@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> Being mothers is the best job for women. Having more White children
> should be our highest goal:

Who is this "our?" you must mean white men. White women have a right
to decide how many children they want to have. They are not baby-making
machines for your superior race (notice I didn't say "master race this
time"). It is just as important for a man to be a father to his
child/children as it is for a woman to be a mother. I'll say more of
this after we read the comments of the parinoid racist below.

> Paul Craig Roberts
>
> December 7, 2000
>
> For whom the bells toll
> There won't always be an England or a United States. Both are already
> fading, not from military conquest but from their own immigration
> policy. Demographers have calculated that by the end of this century
> the English people will be a minority in their homeland. The English
> are not having enough children to reproduce themselves.

More fear that the "white nations" are or will become "third world
countries" sniped.

First, all the nations he mentions in his rant are still very wealthy
and their economies continue to grow despite one, two, maybe three
generations of allowing non-white immigrants. Look at the U.S. We have
had black people here since the beginning. They have been free from
slavery for over 150 years. They have had civil rights and equality
under the law for 40 throughout the U.S. and in some non-Southern states
longer than that. Not that they still don't face racism and
discrimination, not that I need to tell you that, but blacks have been
part of our economy since the beginning. Has that effected our growth,
our, democracy and all the other good things that this Roberts says we
used to have? Mexicans, and American Indians and others have been in
our nation since the beginning too (meaning when we made states out of
the places they resided in). Asians have been here a long time too.
The fact is they contribute more to economic growth than they take from
it, and get no credit for it from the likes of you and him. I am sure
it is the same way in Europe and Canada. You ought to rent "A Day
Without A Mexican" and see what California would be like if they (legal
and illegal) all disappeard. Non-white cultures have many positave
things to offer. No culture is perfect, not theirs nor English culture
as Roberts seems to think.

>>and thus they were not longer
>>counted in the unemployment stats.
>
>
> They should be considered employed and they should get pay checks
> just like policemen and others who do thier part for the nation.
>
>

>
> From: Thrasher

I shouldn't even respond to this since it is only another USENET poster
like yourself. Tell me, do people quote you a lot? But there are a few
obvious falshhoods I can knock down.

> Subject: Individuals Cannot Stand Against Organized Jews
>
The Muslim problem is no more than a reaction to the support of Israel from
England, the USA, and other Western nations.
> The Muslims know what the Jews are and who can blame them for fighting
> in any way they can.

I understand why some Muslims might hate us for our unqualified support
for Israel. But that does not justify a few Muslims blowing up the WTC
or sending suicide bombers in to crows of Jews in Israel. Nothing
justifies that hatred. I respect Muslims and Arabs who are in this
country, but those who give excuses for those things are wrong.

> Already in the USA, it is Whites who are having trouble getting good
> jobs. Jews run all media, most government, financing, and
> universities. They use affirmative action and quotas to put
> unqualified blacks and browns into many jobs, while they take all the
> top jobs. Whites are squeezed from the top and the bottom.

Non-whites have a far higher unemployment rate. Ususally when people
like him bring this up, it is to show that non-whites are less
inteligent, more lazy, etc. The government does not have a "quota"
system. Affirmative action is not manditated, nor enforced for every
business in this nation. It is in effect where there is a past history
of discrimination, or current one. Anyway you can't have it both ways,
saying whites "are having trouble getting good jobs" for one reason and
non-whites for another.

> Some Whites of course are still doing very well being politically
> correct and serving the Jews. These race traitors are worse than the
> Jews themselves. Without their cooperation the Jews would be easily
> removed and could not control the world.

Who? How are Donald Trump, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, the Walton family,
the Rockafellers, The Hearsts, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, or Steve
Jobs "serving the Jews"?


>
>>but now were also not counted in unemployment stats, along
>>with the poorer peasant class of Jews. Easy to have low unemployment
>>when you don't count everyone who is unemployed--kinda like how the U.S.
>>has been keeping tabs on the unemployed since Reagan took office.
>>Inflation was high in Germany due to currancy manipulation,
>
>
> Before Hitler you must mean.

I mis-spoke. I should have said deficits were high. But there was
deflation before Hitler, the currancy manipulation helped "re-inflate"
the economy so to speak. The currance manipulation I referr to was
known as "Mefo bills". Helped fuel economic growth too, but in an
illusionary maner.

>
>>and this was
>> only offset later by gold and other resources looted from the nations
>>Hitler invaded.
>
>
> Hitler was not very interested in gold.
>
> Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
> on December 10, 1940:
>
> They claim to be fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as
> the currency basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their
> hands. We, too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us.
> When I came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
> standard.

I stated once before that Topaz is confusing the "gold standard" which I
never said Hitler favored, with looting treasuries of conquered nations
to prop of the German economy.

>
>> Not all bad economic results could be covered up
>>however. As William Shirer (1959) said, the cost of living in the
>>pre-WWII years went up 25% but real wages decreased slightly.

>
> "THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH
>
> ...from the very beginning Shirer strongly condemns not only Hitler,
> but
> the whole of Germany as well. Setting the tone, and the mood, for the
> entire book.
>
Regardless of his condemnation of the Germans at that time, economic
facts are facts. Do you want me to find some other source for the above
or would you just find fault with them too. He may be unfair to an
extent in judging the German people as a whole, but he has a point that
the people as a whole knew and approved of Hitler's attrocities and
should share some of the guilt.
>
>> Here is the truth
>
>
> Here is the lie, you should say.

The above referres to Lebensborn. See my previous post or just do a
search to see how the Nazis wanted to repopulate their Aryan race.

> Here are some quotes from the German pamphlet "How they Lie" from
> 1940. The pamphlet has many pictures but the words alone are
> interesting enough:

Only a neo-nazi would believe any of those propaganda pamphlets. It is
not worth commenting on.

Topaz
2006-03-20 19:28:24 EST
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:14:12 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.howard@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>Who is this "our?" you must mean white men.

How do you explain the women cheering:

Here are some quotes from the account of the women's rally at the 1936
Nuremberg Rally, taken from the official party proceedings. The
speakers were Gertrud Scholz-Klink, the head of the Nazi women's
league, and Hitler himself, who outlines the Nazi view of the role of
women.
The enormous hall was filled two hours before the meeting began. Many
thousands of women were unable to enter, and gathered outside to hear
the proceedings over loudspeakers. The leaders of the women's labor
service and those of the League of German Girls took their places on
the platform, and the officials of the NS Women's League and the
German Women's Work filled the seats. To the side one could see
numerous representatives of German women's groups from abroad in
colorful and elaborate costumes. The farmers among the participants
also wore their beautiful traditional costumes. After a piece by the
Reich Symphony Orchestra, Hilgenfeldt opened the meeting and greeted
the participants and foreign guests in the name of the National
Women's Leader. The 20,000 women rose to sing "Our Fate was to be a
Free People."

Speech by Gertrud Scholz-Klink:

"The Soviet Union declared the legal equality of men and women in all
areas in a law of 18 November 1918. That meant the same right to work,
the same duty to support oneself, the right of control over one's own
body, which for the woman meant the right to abortion. The view was
that men and women had full freedom only when the state stayed as far
as possible form personal relationships. The state provided no legal
rights in marriage, which meant that there were only two forms of
marriage. One could register a marriage before a government office, or
one could be married without virtue of state ceremony.
The result was that, even when one had been married officially, the
individual partners had the right when they were unhappy to go to the
same office and, for a very small fee, dissolve the marriage. Should
there be children, they would be housed in collective homes, since
both father and mother worked and housing was in short supply, given
the migration from the countryside to the cities. The absence of
resources in such homes led of necessity to demanding money from the
economically stronger partner. The result was constant legal battles
and enormous misery for the children.
Simultaneously, women were increasingly absorbed in industry and the
military. In 1918, 24 of every 1000 miners were women. By 1932, 153 of
1000 were women, a number that had grown to 321 by 1935! In automobile
and tractor manufacturing, women are 30.4% of the work force, 63.5% of
the drilling industry.
The full equality of the sexes had the further result that girls are
given the same military training as boys in the communist youth
organization and schools. The Red Army is the only army in the world
in which both men and women are trained as soldiers and officers to
wage aggressive wars...
We Germans had 14 years under an attempt to impose Bolshevist
principles on us. The German woman took her place alongside the German
man when she realized that a struggle was going on between God's order
for earthly affairs and universal apostles of humanity who wanted to
replace these eternal laws. It was a battle between good and evil.
Good and evil are equally strong forces in life. They find visible
form in National Socialism and Bolshevism. National Socialism is good
become visible for we Germans. It respects the earth from which our
people have grown. Bolshevism is absolute evil because it is a
universal approach that rejects the eternal laws of nature. "Good" and
"evil" have never stood in such stark contrast before all the world as
they do today in these two forces...
Our work is to spread this idea. It is nothing other than a daily
struggle between these two forces. It is not ultimately a battle of
means or of money, that is of perishable things, rather it is ennobled
by the spirit in whose service we stand: In the battle between good
and evil, we are the obedient servants of the good."
Speech by Adolf Hitler:
Those abroad may say 'That is fine for the men! But your women cannot
be optimistic. They are oppressed and dominated and enslaved. You give
them no freedom of equality." We answer: What you see as a yoke others
see as a blessing. What is heaven to one is hell for another...
As long as we have sound men-and we National Socialists will see to
that-there will be no women throwing hand grenades in Germany, no
women sharp-shooters. That is not equality for women, rather their
debasement...
Women have boundless opportunities to work. For us the woman has
always been the loyal companion of the man in work and life. People
often tell me: You want to drive women out of the professions. No, I
only want to make it possible for her to found her own family and to
have children, for that is how she can best serve our people!...
If a woman jurist does the best possible work, but next to her lives a
woman who has given birth to five, six or seven healthy children who
are well educated, I would say the following: From the standpoint of
the eternal values of our people, the woman who has borne and raised
children has done more, given more, accomplished more for the future
of our people!...
Real leadership has the duty to enable every man and woman to fulfill
their dreams, or at least to make it easier for them to do so. We seek
this goal through laws that encourage the healthy education of
children. But we have done more than simply pass laws. We are
educating for German women and girls a manly youth, the men of
tomorrow!"
"I believe we have found the right way to educate a healthy youth. Let
me say this to all the literary know-it-alls and philosophers of
equality: (laughter) Do not deceive yourselves! There are two separate
arenas in the life of a nation": that of men and that of women. Nature
has rightly ordained that men head the family and are burdened with
the task of protecting their people, the community. The world of the
woman, when she is fortunate, is her family, her husband, her
children, her home. From there she can see the whole. The two arenas
together join to form a community that enables a people to survive. We
want to build a common world of both sexes in which each sees its own
tasks, tasks that it alone can do and therefore can and must do
alone."
"When I see this wonderful growing youth, my work becomes easy, I
overcome every weakness. Then I know why I do everything. It is not to
build some miserable business that will perish, rather this work is
for something lasting and eternal. A vital part of this future is the
German girl, the German woman, the German woman, and thus we meet the
girl, the woman, the mother."
"I do not measure the success of our work by our roads. I do not
measure it by our new factories, or our new bridges, or the new
divisions. Rather, I measure our success by the effect we have on the
German child, the German youth. If they succeed, I know our people
will not perish and our work will not have been in vain."
"I am convinced that no one understands our work better than the
German woman. (long-lasting, jubilant applause) Our opponents think
that Germany has tyrannized women. I can only reply that without the
support and true devotion of the women of the party, I could never
have led the movement to victory." (renewed enthusiastic applause)
The Reich Women's Leader thanked the Führer after the jubilation at
the end of his speech had calmed down. In the name of all German
women, she promised to work hard to ease his concerns. Not only the
Reich Women's Leader's words, but also the jubilation of the crowd
followed the Führer as he left the hall.


> White women have a right
>to decide how many children they want to have.

We can do a lot of things to encourage more children.

>They are not baby-making
>machines for your superior race (notice I didn't say "master race this
>time").

Their best job is to be mothers. Children are the future and we
should care about the future very much.


> It is just as important for a man to be a father to his
>child/children as it is for a woman to be a mother.

Being a father should not be a paid occupation. Being a mother should
be.

>I'll say more of
>this after we read the comments of the parinoid racist below.
>
>> Paul Craig Roberts
>>
>> December 7, 2000
>>
>> For whom the bells toll
>> There won't always be an England or a United States. Both are already
>> fading, not from military conquest but from their own immigration
>> policy. Demographers have calculated that by the end of this century
>> the English people will be a minority in their homeland. The English
>> are not having enough children to reproduce themselves.
>
>More fear that the "white nations" are or will become "third world
>countries" sniped.
>
>First, all the nations he mentions in his rant are still very wealthy
>and their economies continue to grow despite one, two, maybe three
>generations of allowing non-white immigrants. Look at the U.S. We have
>had black people here since the beginning. They have been free from
>slavery for over 150 years. They have had civil rights and equality
>under the law for 40 throughout the U.S. and in some non-Southern states
>longer than that. Not that they still don't face racism and

"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.


>discrimination, not that I need to tell you that, but blacks have been
>part of our economy since the beginning. Has that effected our growth,
>our, democracy and all the other good things that this Roberts says we
>used to have?

Yes, one paycheck per family used to be plenty and they could have a
lot of children too. As for safety and other things the past was also
much better. The goal of the USA is to destroy the White race and this
means turning it into a third world country.

> Mexicans, and American Indians and others have been in
>our nation since the beginning too (meaning when we made states out of
>the places they resided in). Asians have been here a long time too.
>The fact is they contribute more to economic growth than they take from
>it, and get no credit for it from the likes of you and him. I am sure
>it is the same way in Europe and Canada. You ought to rent "A Day
>Without A Mexican" and see what California would be like if they (legal
>and illegal) all disappeard. Non-white cultures have many positave
>things to offer. No culture is perfect, not theirs nor English culture
>as Roberts seems to think.

Safest / Most Dangerous Cities and Percentage of Blacks

Safest Cities (75,000 or more) per
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/

1. Amherst, N.Y 3.9%
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=91

2. Newton, Mass. 2.0%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Newton-Massachusetts.html

3. Mission Viejo, Calif. 1.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Mission-Viejo-California.html

4. Cary, N.C. 6.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Cary-North-Carolina.html

5. Brick Township, N.J. (Less than 1% as computed by dividing 75,325
population into 751 blacks)
http://www.co.ocean.nj.us/planning/databook/09RACE2000.htm

6. Simi Valley, Calif. 1.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Simi-Valley-California.html

7. Sunnyvale, Calif. 2.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sunnyvale-California.html

8. Colonie, N.Y. 3.5%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Colonie-New-York.html

9. Sterling Heights, Mich. 1.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sterling-Heights-Michigan.html

10. Clarkstown, N.Y 7.9%
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=409
____________________

Most Dangerous Cities (75,000 or more) per
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/

1. Detroit 81.6%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html

2. Atlanta 61.4%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Atlanta-Georgia.html

3. St. Louis 51.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html

4. Baltimore 64.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Baltimore-Maryland.html

5. Gary, Ind. 84.0%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Gary-Indiana.html

6. Camden, N.J. 53.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Camden-New-Jersey.html

7. Tampa 26.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Tampa-Florida.html

8. West Palm Beach, Fla. 32.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/West-Palm-Beach-Florida.html

9. Compton, Calif. 40.3% (White non-Hispanic 1.0%)
http://www.city-data.com/city/Compton-California.html

10. Memphis, Tenn. 61.4%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Memphis-Tennessee.html

BroJack

>
>I shouldn't even respond to this since it is only another USENET poster
>like yourself. Tell me, do people quote you a lot? But there are a few
>obvious falshhoods I can knock down.
>
>I understand why some Muslims might hate us for our unqualified support
>for Israel. But that does not justify a few Muslims blowing up the WTC
>or sending suicide bombers in to crows of Jews in Israel. Nothing
>justifies that hatred. I respect Muslims and Arabs who are in this
>country, but those who give excuses for those things are wrong.
>
>Non-whites have a far higher unemployment rate. Ususally when people
>like him bring this up, it is to show that non-whites are less
>inteligent, more lazy, etc. The government does not have a "quota"
>system. Affirmative action is not manditated, nor enforced for every
>business in this nation. It is in effect where there is a past history
>of discrimination, or current one. Anyway you can't have it both ways,
>saying whites "are having trouble getting good jobs" for one reason and
>non-whites for another.
>
>
>Who? How are Donald Trump, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, the Walton family,
>the Rockafellers, The Hearsts, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, or Steve
>Jobs "serving the Jews"?

Jews are in power and their goal is to destroy the White race. Those
people don't object to this.

>I mis-spoke. I should have said deficits were high. But there was
>deflation before Hitler, the currancy manipulation helped "re-inflate"
>the economy so to speak. The currance manipulation I referr to was
>known as "Mefo bills". Helped fuel economic growth too, but in an
>illusionary maner.

Hitler saved Germany in a very real manner:

Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew -- as
almost all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing,
an almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms -- with
a combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this
way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left…
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932…
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew -- politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now
legally and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly
convert that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides -- those for and those against Hitler -- were very
nearly equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided
among themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one
thing above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable
advantage: in their convictions and in their total faith in a leader.
Their highly organized and well-disciplined party had contented with
the worst kind of obstacles, and had overcome them…
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production…
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; …
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable…
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy -- He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career…
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government…
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."…
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"…
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone…
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class…
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose…
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts -- and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday…
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio…
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, André François-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. François-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade à Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds
-- a million -- of those attending were workers. "This May First was
victory day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard -- or their guns. Restoring the nation would
take more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements.
Only then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May
First mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved -- materially, morally, and, one
might even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new
society fit for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and
prejudices of the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands -- an authoritarian
state, its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole -- Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of
the last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation -- The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?…
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products…
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
>From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler -- like nearly all
of his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent -- were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable…
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall -- this company would eventually
promote many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent -- a quite acceptable figure in those days -- whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century…
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together…
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn…
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting -- in accordance with "sound" financial principles
-- for the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around…
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses…
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms -- like Krupp,
IG Farben and the large automobile manufacturers -- taking on new
workers on a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous,
car sales increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone.
Employment in the auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for
full production, with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone -- powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike -- his own concept of the organic social community. Only the
loyal collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all
classes and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations -- and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(Führer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other -- neither the worker
by arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the
blackmail of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community -- no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional,
arbitrary power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it…
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution…
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant…
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories -- something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past -- and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era -- five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1. The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it
approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may
also apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as
established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will
apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be
applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the
Distress of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick…
>From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?…
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality -- These measures did indeed break
through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved
the material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.


>
>I stated once before that Topaz is confusing the "gold standard" which I
>never said Hitler favored, with looting treasuries of conquered nations
>to prop of the German economy.

The Jews control your media and your mind.

>
>Regardless of his condemnation of the Germans at that time, economic
>facts are facts. Do you want me to find some other source for the above
>or would you just find fault with them too. He may be unfair to an
>extent in judging the German people as a whole, but he has a point that
>the people as a whole knew and approved of Hitler's attrocities and
>should share some of the guilt.



During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absence
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas chamber"
which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually built by the
allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <harmon@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%harmon@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-nospam@erols.com> wrote in article
<*u@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully
admit that it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical
evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who
died from gas have been found. The Communists were the first to enter
the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up
the buildings? Then they could claim that these demolished buildings
used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders from Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling
still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude
through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>

An article in the British newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at
Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he
refused to
cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He
came in the winter
of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls
Mr. Jones. Two
other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell
to help break
him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and
day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down
his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise
he was made
to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three
days and
nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full
confession to
the authorities.
</quote>

The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
>From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
>From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomery Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920 "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the
membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews
comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan,
The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."

>
>The above referres to Lebensborn. See my previous post or just do a
>search to see how the Nazis wanted to repopulate their Aryan race.

Do your searches tell you anything like this:


Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."

>
>Only a neo-nazi would believe any of those propaganda pamphlets. It is
>not worth commenting on.

Your media (which is controlled by Jews) are the ones who are lying.
If they were telling the truth they would tell you that Hitler
believed the Jews control the media. Why don't they tell you that?
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:


"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honor which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.

"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

Tim Howard
2006-03-22 01:43:26 EST
Topaz wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:14:12 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.howard@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Who is this "our?" you must mean white men.
>
>
> How do you explain the women cheering:
>
> Here are some quotes from the account of the women's rally at the 1936
> Nuremberg Rally,

Just because some women were cheering Hitler in 1936 means nothing.
What of the giant rallys filled with cheering people for all the various
Communist leaders that you can think of in the last century? You hate
the Communists; does that mean you are wrong and everything about them
was good?

We answer: What you see as a yoke others
> see as a blessing. What is heaven to one is hell for another...

One truthfull thing in this speach. If individual women choose to be
enslaved by their men that is their choice, but no government should
force that upon the unwilling.

> As long as we have sound men-and we National Socialists will see to
> that-there will be no women throwing hand grenades in Germany, no
> women sharp-shooters. That is not equality for women, rather their
> debasement...

Yes, its too bad we can't get men to adopt that attitude as well.


>> White women have a right
>>to decide how many children they want to have.
>
>
> We can do a lot of things to encourage more children.
>
>
>>They are not baby-making
>>machines for your superior race (notice I didn't say "master race this
>>time").
>
>
> Their best job is to be mothers. Children are the future and we
> should care about the future very much.
>
>
>
>>It is just as important for a man to be a father to his
>>child/children as it is for a woman to be a mother.
>
>
> Being a father should not be a paid occupation. Being a mother should
> be.
>
>
>>I'll say more of
>>this after we read the comments of the parinoid racist below.
>>
>>
>>>Paul Craig Roberts
>>>
>>>December 7, 2000
>>>
>>>For whom the bells toll
>>>There won't always be an England or a United States. Both are already
>>>fading, not from military conquest but from their own immigration
>>>policy. Demographers have calculated that by the end of this century
>>>the English people will be a minority in their homeland. The English
>>>are not having enough children to reproduce themselves.
>>
>>More fear that the "white nations" are or will become "third world
>>countries" sniped.
>>
>>First, all the nations he mentions in his rant are still very wealthy
>>and their economies continue to grow despite one, two, maybe three
>>generations of allowing non-white immigrants. Look at the U.S. We have
>>had black people here since the beginning. They have been free from
>>slavery for over 150 years. They have had civil rights and equality
>>under the law for 40 throughout the U.S. and in some non-Southern states
>>longer than that. Not that they still don't face racism and
>
>
> "The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
> argument with a liberal."
> Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
>
> by Thomas Jackson
> There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
> horror than does the United States.
Blah blah blah
>
Notice, as usual, Topaz doesn't answer my point but simply reposts
quotes by other racists and anti-semites.
>
>>discrimination, not that I need to tell you that, but blacks have been
>>part of our economy since the beginning. Has that effected our growth,
>>our, democracy and all the other good things that this Roberts says we
>>used to have?
>
>
> Yes, one paycheck per family used to be plenty and they could have a
> lot of children too. As for safety and other things the past was also
> much better. The goal of the USA is to destroy the White race and this
> means turning it into a third world country.

There are pleanty of reasons for that besides some Jewish conspiracy.
Take the decline in unionization for instance. Outsourcing of jobs to
third-world countries by business (all big businesses are doing this,
regardless of the race of the CEO) is another. Inflation, high housing
prices, falling real wages, irresponsible consumerism and consumer debt.
Many people and things are to blame.
>
>>Mexicans, and American Indians and others have been in
>>our nation since the beginning too (meaning when we made states out of
>>the places they resided in). Asians have been here a long time too.
>>The fact is they contribute more to economic growth than they take from
>>it, and get no credit for it from the likes of you and him. I am sure
>>it is the same way in Europe and Canada. You ought to rent "A Day
>>Without A Mexican" and see what California would be like if they (legal
>>and illegal) all disappeard. Non-white cultures have many positave
>>things to offer. No culture is perfect, not theirs nor English culture
>>as Roberts seems to think.
>
>
> Safest / Most Dangerous Cities and Percentage of Blacks
>
> Safest Cities (75,000 or more) per
>
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/
>
> 1. Amherst, N.Y 3.9%
> http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=91
>
> 2. Newton, Mass. 2.0%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Newton-Massachusetts.html
>
> 3. Mission Viejo, Calif. 1.1%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Mission-Viejo-California.html
>
> 4. Cary, N.C. 6.1%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Cary-North-Carolina.html
>
> 5. Brick Township, N.J. (Less than 1% as computed by dividing 75,325
> population into 751 blacks)
> http://www.co.ocean.nj.us/planning/databook/09RACE2000.htm
>
> 6. Simi Valley, Calif. 1.3%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Simi-Valley-California.html
>
> 7. Sunnyvale, Calif. 2.2%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Sunnyvale-California.html
>
> 8. Colonie, N.Y. 3.5%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Colonie-New-York.html
>
> 9. Sterling Heights, Mich. 1.3%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Sterling-Heights-Michigan.html
>
> 10. Clarkstown, N.Y 7.9%
> http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=409
> ____________________

Not only are these white communities, they are mostly wealthy and
upper-class communities. Little wonder there is low crime.

> Most Dangerous Cities (75,000 or more) per
>
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/
>
> 1. Detroit 81.6%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html
>
> 2. Atlanta 61.4%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Atlanta-Georgia.html
>
> 3. St. Louis 51.2%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html
>
> 4. Baltimore 64.3%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Baltimore-Maryland.html
>
> 5. Gary, Ind. 84.0%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Gary-Indiana.html
>
> 6. Camden, N.J. 53.3%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Camden-New-Jersey.html
>
> 7. Tampa 26.1%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Tampa-Florida.html
>
> 8. West Palm Beach, Fla. 32.2%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/West-Palm-Beach-Florida.html
>
> 9. Compton, Calif. 40.3% (White non-Hispanic 1.0%)
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Compton-California.html
>
> 10. Memphis, Tenn. 61.4%
> http://www.city-data.com/city/Memphis-Tennessee.html
>
Poverty in large concentrations leads to crime and violence due to
hopelessness and dispair. Wealthy and middle-class blacks to not commit
lots of violent crime. With nearly 2 generations of lack of proper
urban planning and lack of funding going to urban areas, its little
wonder there are lots of people competing for a few jobs.
>
>
>>I shouldn't even respond to this since it is only another USENET poster
>>like yourself. Tell me, do people quote you a lot? But there are a few
>>obvious falshhoods I can knock down.
>>
>>I understand why some Muslims might hate us for our unqualified support
>>for Israel. But that does not justify a few Muslims blowing up the WTC
>>or sending suicide bombers in to crows of Jews in Israel. Nothing
>>justifies that hatred. I respect Muslims and Arabs who are in this
>>country, but those who give excuses for those things are wrong.
>>
>>Non-whites have a far higher unemployment rate. Ususally when people
>>like him bring this up, it is to show that non-whites are less
>>inteligent, more lazy, etc. The government does not have a "quota"
>>system. Affirmative action is not manditated, nor enforced for every
>>business in this nation. It is in effect where there is a past history
>>of discrimination, or current one. Anyway you can't have it both ways,
>>saying whites "are having trouble getting good jobs" for one reason and
>>non-whites for another.
>>
>>
>>Who? How are Donald Trump, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, the Walton family,
>>the Rockafellers, The Hearsts, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, or Steve
>>Jobs "serving the Jews"?
>
>
> Jews are in power and their goal is to destroy the White race. Those
> people don't object to this.

Prove this is the reason.

>>I mis-spoke. I should have said deficits were high. But there was
>>deflation before Hitler, the currancy manipulation helped "re-inflate"
>>the economy so to speak. The currance manipulation I referr to was
>>known as "Mefo bills". Helped fuel economic growth too, but in an
>>illusionary maner.
>
>
> Hitler saved Germany in a very real manner:

Lots of stuff praising Hitler saving Germany sniped.

He could have done those things for all of Germany. He could have
united all people in Germany together against the world instead of just
aryans. But no, he had to eliminate, drive out, or imprison all who
would not convert to his side. Sure he may at first have tried to win
over some opponents, like the unionists in the May Day story mentioned,
but soon all those who disagreed were eliminated. His plebicites were a
fraud. Just remember this famous quote by Martin Niemoeller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Too bad he didn't add the Gypsys, and homosexuals at the beginning, and
Roman Catholics after the lines about the Jews. Thought some say he
later vaired the speach to include Catholics and even "social democrats"

> Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
> save the six million unemployed from total destruction,

Too bad no one could save the six million jews from total destruction.

Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
> styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
> majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.

Hitler came to power with a far lower minority than that. Then he
"vanquished" his adversaries as this author admits earlier.

> Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
> authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
> sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
> as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
> leadership.

People who like to be sheep do. I wouldn't tell our "founding fathers"
his above statement.


> Do your searches tell you anything like this:
>
>
> Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies.

Just because Hitler said something does not make it fact. Do you think
he was god or something, that everything he says is gosipel?

> Your media (which is controlled by Jews) are the ones who are lying.
> If they were telling the truth they would tell you that Hitler
> believed the Jews control the media. Why don't they tell you that?

Maybe no one is interested in talking about Hitler so much anymore,
except you. The media don't do stories about Stalin, Mao, Tojo etc.
anymore either. In a couple of years they will forget about Saddam
Husien as well.
>



Topaz
2006-03-22 18:54:13 EST
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:43:26 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.howard@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>Just because some women were cheering Hitler in 1936 means nothing.
>What of the giant rallys filled with cheering people for all the various
>Communist leaders that you can think of in the last century? You hate
>the Communists; does that mean you are wrong and everything about them
>was good?

"I know you expect no deep expression of feelings, for feelings cannot
be clothed in words. But please imagine this: jobless, without any
money. For two years! For four years! For six years! A desperate
woman, broken in body and soul, with three young children.
How often did I see their hungry eyes looking toward me with vain
expectation. Nothing is more tortuous than such looks from children.
My faith in him, the fanatical fighter, was what kept me and mine from
what lured us - and anyone else in our situation - Suicide!
And today?
A happy mother who is always singing with her children. No one can see
in her the miserable, desperate woman she once was. Instead of three
unhappy hollow-cheeked children, four little devils making noise far
and wide.
Look at them! There may be families with better behaved children, but
none with children as cheerful and happy! That is what the Führer
means to me and mine.
I turned my back very early to a foreign worldview because it left my
whole life meaningless. The Führer gave me his worldview a firm place
to stand, for it is nothing but a knowledge of the eternal laws that
are behind the universe.
His deeds are a joyful fulfillment of these laws. His successes do not
seem to me, as one hears all too often, the result of good luck,
rather as the natural consequences of his nature. This faith, no, this
certainty, enables me to understand the Führer when his actions would
otherwise require blind confidence.
Such obvious confidence is the most wonderful feeling that I can
imagine. Admiration? Recognition? Thanks? They are nothing when
compared to the full understanding of a people of 80 million for the
mission of its Führer. That alone would be crowning of his sacrificial
struggle.
This fulfillment of this wish is my prayer for the Führer."
Fred. Ch., Poppelau

>
>One truthfull thing in this speach. If individual women choose to be
>enslaved by their men that is their choice, but no government should
>force that upon the unwilling.

It's mainly the religious people who are against feminism and
homosexual perversion. It says in the Bible that women should not have
authority over men. Islam is the same way. The problem with religions
is that they always fight each other. Christians fight against Muslims
more than they fight those who are for homosexual perversion and
feminism. Protestants and Catholics had bloody conflicts, and the
different sects of Islam fight each other.

What we should do is explain why women should not have authority
over men, and not merely by saying God says so. Here is my
explanation:

Women are attracted to what is hard. Men are attracted to what is
soft. Do something really macho and see how turned on the women get.
They can't help it. Even if they are liberals it is still in their
nature. Tough women don't turn us on one iota though. What does a sexy
voice in a woman sound like? It is when they talk soft and tender. We
are turned on and we know we are being seduced when women talk
especially soft to us. It may be all different in the movies and on TV
but that is how it really is.

Religious societies like men to be harder and women to be softer.
Liberal societies don't agree with that at all. They go out of their
way to try to make everyone equal. They have affirmative action so
more women can be policemen.

Getting back to women in authority. It's not that we want to be
unfair or that we don't like women. But what is soft should not be
telling what is hard what to do. It doesn't make us feel hard and
women aren't turned on by males they can order around.

If we want a society that knows this we can join a religion and
wage war against people who want the same things that we do. There is
also the political option. There is only one choice politically.
Notice the phrase "the -only- party" in this speech:

Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:
"German women, German men !
It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the
Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women.
Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not
forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National
Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily
politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very
unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic
intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not
respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the
woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different
value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German
woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best
sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other
areas than the man.
The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but
also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in
the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices
and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best
suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless
devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.
The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the
past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea
of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread
winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the
man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is
not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her
talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the
frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men
were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to
the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men
always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all
great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination
have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually
loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the
woman.
It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must
be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our
attitude toward women.
The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in
government, politics, economics and social relations has not left
women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought
impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some
good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that
are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations
have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set
in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a
distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with
former ideals.
A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary
and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most
suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious
duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can
continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of
the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the
builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's
source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place
for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,
in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that
those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in
the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their
abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other
ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially
reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to
fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.
The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.
It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no
intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer
and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.
But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in
motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the
living mother of a family who gives the state children.
German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning
to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more
rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected
to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and
her daily bread is not a good trade.
A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in
our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now
the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most
evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's
birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without
emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The
government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the
resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental
change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is
responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying
about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each
elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by
1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are
the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it
will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine
the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.
We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our
national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The
national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation
on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the
woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends
to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of
our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our
blood is assured..."


>
> > As long as we have sound men-and we National Socialists will see to
> > that-there will be no women throwing hand grenades in Germany, no
> > women sharp-shooters. That is not equality for women, rather their
> > debasement...
>
>Yes, its too bad we can't get men to adopt that attitude as well.
>
Men should be good warriors. They made a new movie proving it. "The
Hills Have Eyes". It looks like you need to learn from it.

>
>Notice, as usual, Topaz doesn't answer my point but simply reposts
>quotes by other racists and anti-semites.

No doubt the reposts answered the point very well.


>There are pleanty of reasons for that besides some Jewish conspiracy.

Here are some quotes from "The Shadow of Zog" by Israel Shamir:

Jeff Blankfort writes, "Ardently pro-Israel American Jews are in
positions of unprecedented influence within the United States and have
assumed or been given decision making positions over virtually every
segment of our culture and body politic". And he quotes Benjamin
Ginsberg's "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State":
"Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and
they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade's corporate
mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation's
population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The
chief executive officers of the three major television networks and
the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the
nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single
newspaper, the New York Times".
Is it a conspiracy of Jews to steal the Republic? No, no conspiracy is
necessary. In Jules Verne's juvenile novel, Children of Captain Grant,
a villain leads the captain's ship astray by placing a magnet brick
beneath the compass. The magnet does not conspire: it constrains the
compass. The sheer mass of self-involved Jews in the media acts in a
similar way and draws the superpower off its normal course. For the
media is the nerve system of a modern state. Modern democracy in
practice in a very complicated society can be compared to a
sophisticated computer. Its machinery can function successfully on one
condition: there is a free flow of information across the system.
While every input is instinctively checked and sieved on one
criterion, whether it is good for Jews..
Thus, concentration of Jews in the media created the distortion. A
takeover of every other part of industry or trade would be noticed and
reported in the media; but there is no remedy for media takeover...
Gandhi could be condemned as 'racist', for he 'noticed' the
privileged position of the British in India. By PC logic, a good
American should reply to Mahatma: yes, there are some rich and
powerful Brits in India, but there are also poor Tommy Atkinses,
governesses, honest administrators, writers like Kipling and Orwell.
On the other hand, there are powerful and rich Rajas, important
Brahmins. How do you dare, sir, to demand 'de-colonisation'! This is
sheer anti-English racism!
An old Indian Air Force officer Joe Thomas actually reminded that,
"while the population of the US today is approximately the same as the
population of India a century ago, the British in India never numbered
more than 50,000 and still ruled India. They did not rule India by
force but by dominating Indian discourse. Indians fought for the
British and put down rebellions. During the two world wars, millions
of Indians fought as volunteers for Britain. If such a tiny group
could control India, then it is not strange that 100 times that number
can influence the United States"...

Home Page of Israel Shamir:
<http://www.israelshamir.net>
<http://www.israelshamir.net>


>Take the decline in unionization for instance.

The unions are a good idea but they are run by the wrong kind of
people. National Socialism replaced unions with better things.


> Outsourcing of jobs to
>third-world countries by business (all big businesses are doing this,
>regardless of the race of the CEO) is another.

You are right about that.

> Inflation, high housing
>prices, falling real wages, irresponsible consumerism and consumer debt.
> Many people and things are to blame.


>Not only are these white communities, they are mostly wealthy and
>upper-class communities. Little wonder there is low crime.
>
>
>Poverty in large concentrations leads to crime and violence due to
>hopelessness and dispair. Wealthy and middle-class blacks to not commit
>lots of violent crime. With nearly 2 generations of lack of proper
>urban planning and lack of funding going to urban areas, its little
>wonder there are lots of people competing for a few jobs.

>
>Prove this is the reason.

See the movie. "They Live". At the meeting it wasn't all "them"
there were some traitors of our kind with them.

>
>Lots of stuff praising Hitler saving Germany sniped.
>
>He could have done those things for all of Germany. He could have
>united all people in Germany together against the world instead of just
>aryans.

Germany should be for the Germans.

Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on October 24, 1933

"Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German
nation."


> But no, he had to eliminate, drive out, or imprison all who
>would not convert to his side. Sure he may at first have tried to win
>over some opponents, like the unionists in the May Day story mentioned,
>but soon all those who disagreed were eliminated. His plebicites were a
>fraud. Just remember this famous quote by Martin Niemoeller:
>
>First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
> because I was not a communist;
>Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
> because I was not a socialist;
>Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
> because I was not a trade unionist;
>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
> because I was not a Jew;
>Then they came for me-
> and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemoeller wrote that after the war. He died in 1984. He is
certainly no proof of a holo. The USA locked up the Japanese and
others during the war.

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

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

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

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

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


>
>Too bad he didn't add the Gypsys, and homosexuals at the beginning, and
>Roman Catholics after the lines about the Jews. Thought some say he
>later vaired the speach to include Catholics and even "social democrats"
>
>
>Too bad no one could save the six million jews from total destruction.



KAS: Welcome to American Dissident Voices, Mark Weber.

MW: Hello, Kevin.

KAS: What is the Institute for Historical Review, of which you are the
director?

MW: The Institute for Historical Review is more than twenty years old,
and what we try to do is, as we say, to "bring history into accord
with the facts." That's quoting Harry Elmer Barnes, who is a kind of
ideal, or mentor, for the IHR. The IHR is most famous -- or, in some
eyes, infamous -- for what we've done with regard to the so-called
"holocaust"
-- the Jewish "holocaust" during World War II.

Over the years, the IHR has published quite a lot in its Journal, and
in books, and at conferences to show that much of what the public has
been
led to believe about the fate of Europe's Jews during World War II is
wrong or exaggerated or distorted. And that has just enraged groups
like
the ADL [the Jewish "Anti-Defamation League" of B'nai Brith -- Ed.],
and
the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and so forth.

But that's not all the IHR does. We try to deal with a number of other
issues as well.

KAS: You call yourselves revisionists? Is that correct?

MW: That's right.

KAS: The word sounds odd to many listeners, I'm sure. It sounds you're
trying to revise history. Don't we already know what happened in
history? Why should it be revised?

MW: Right. It's a sorry thing that the word "revisionism" has taken on
the connotation it has. "Revisionism" just comes from the Latin "to
look
again at things"; and all good history is revisionist in the sense
that
always an effort is made -- and should be made -- to examine the past
in
the light of new information, of new research, and new insights. And
that's what the IHR does.

But the main point of revisionism is that it's skeptical history. It's
unofficial history. What people call, oftentimes, "standard" history
is
really just official history. And what revisionism tries to do -- and,
again, it is a term that many people, as you point out, have trouble
understanding -- revisionism means to take a skeptical new look at the
past based on what we know. But many people who are fearful of the
term
"revisionism" don't realize the extent to which they themselves are
victims of a kind of "official" history, that history can actually
change in our encyclopedias and our standard books and so forth. And
people think that whatever the "official" version is, is the "correct"
one. Hardly anyone who's studied history can fail to be surprised at
the
extent to which Americans are taught today a version of our own
history,
as Americans, that's very different from the version of history that
was
taught to our grandparents and great-grandparents fifty, sixty, or
seventy years ago, for example.

KAS: So you're saying that, over time, the "official" version changes.
And does it also change geographically, depending on where you are,
what
the "official" version actually is?

MW: Of course, yes. Just about everyone would be in favor, for
example,
of the kind of revisionism that took place in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union after the fall of Communism. The official history
presented
the Communist past in a way, of course, that was in keeping with the
Communist regime, and after the fall of the Communist regimes in
Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union there was an enormous process of
revisionism
-- that is, of re-examining history on the basis of information that
had
been suppressed for many years. By the same token, in American history
for example, during World War II the Soviet Union was an ally of the
United States. And so the Soviet leader Stalin and the Soviet Union
were
presented in a positive way, in keeping with the wartime alliance.
After
the Cold War began and during the 1950s, the portrayal of the Soviet
Union and Stalin was a very different one. There are many, many
examples
of that. And revisionism is simply part and parcel of the natural and
important process of constantly re-examining our past based on new
insights and information.

KAS: If you're questioning the "official" version, doesn't that put
you
at odds with certain very powerful interests? Have these interests
tried
to retaliate in any way against you?

MW: The most obvious is that by calling into question this
almost-icon,
this mantra about the "holocaust," this endless emphasis about the
suffering or fate of Europe's Jews during World War II, the IHR has
enraged the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the
World Jewish Congress, and other powerful Jewish organizations -- and
the state of Israel -- and their helpers. But the IHR really doesn't
care very much what they think. We just assume that's the attitude
they'll take. At the same time, we try to do our work in a way that is
responsible and sober. The IHR has succeeded, for example, in getting
what's called 501c3 status with the federal government; that is, it's
recognized by the federal government as a legitimate public-interest
educational enterprise, and people can donate money to the IHR and
deduct the amount for income tax purposes. Now, when the IHR got that
status, Tom Lantos, a very prominent Jewish Zionist member of
Congress,
screamed and yelled about it. The ADL issued a news release denouncing
it. And, on the basis of that, they sent another IRS agent out here to
go through our books, but they were unable to find any pretext to deny
us that.

But the most dramatic opposition to our work has come from Jewish
terrorists. In the late 70s and early 80s, there was a whole series of
drive-by shootings, bomb attacks, harassment, and violence against
employees that culminated on July 4th, 1984 in an arson attack on the
IHR offices that destroyed the IHR office and warehouse and resulted
in
immense damage. But since that time, it's been relatively peaceful.
It's
been rather peaceful.

KAS: That did not stop you, did it?

MW: No, it didn't. And it was very gratifying to see the tremendous
rallying that took place by people in the aftermath of that 1984 arson
attack.

KAS: We've gotten a sketch of what you do, and the fact that you have
some powerful enemies who don't want the facts of history to be looked
into. Who are you? Who are the leading personalities of the Institute?

MW: I'm the director; I've been employed full time since 1991. The IHR
Journal has an Editorial Advisory Board that is made up of scholars
from
many different countries who are distinguished in one way or the
other.
But probably most high-profile has been the support which the IHR has
received at its conferences. Two years ago, one of the speakers was
former Congressman Pete McCloskey, who was noted, during the time he
was
in Congress, as quite a liberal. He was the first Republican
Congressman
to call for the impeachment, years ago, of Richard Nixon. But we've
had
other prominent supporters who have been, as it were, conservative. At
the recent IHR conference we held in June, Joe Sobran was the banquet
speaker, and he's noted for his conservative views. For years, he was
a
senior editor at National Review. Also Professor Tony Martin of
Wellesley College in Massachusetts, who was actually born in the West
Indies -- and he's Black, spoke at the same conference. So the IHR has
support from people who are recognized, sometimes prominent: writers,
scholars, and thinkers of different political backgrounds. And one of
the points of the IHR is to get support for the work that we do,
regardless of people's political, racial, and other background.

KAS: What are your qualifications for the work that you're doing, for
directing an institute such as the IHR?

MW: Well [amused], I don't know about my qualifications? I was born
and
raised in Portland, Oregon; I went to school at Portland State
University; I have a Bachelor's degree from Portland State, but I
studied at the University of Munich in Germany; I studied at the
University of Illinois in Chicago; and I went to graduate school at
Indiana University in Bloomington where I got a Master's degree.
That's
sort of my qualifications, but in one sense the qualifications are not
one's degrees. It's one's commitment to what I regard as this enormous
struggle for truth in history, because much of what we are told in our
society is a version of history that is not only wrong and skewed and
distorted, but dangerously so.

KAS: What do you mean? Why is it dangerous, and who's doing the
skewing?

MW: The most obvious expression of this, and one that the IHR and I
have
spoken about and we've written about quite a lot -- especially in the
last several years -- is Jewish, Zionist power. In the United States,
Jews wield immense, tremendous power and influence, way out of
proportion to the tiny percentage of the population that they make up.
And this affects not only our policy, especially in the Middle East,
but
how we look at history. And this is manifest, perhaps most obviously,
in
the enormous way that the so-called "holocaust" is presented and
emphasized in our schoolbooks, in our schools, in our television, in
our
motion pictures, and so forth. And this presents just a very skewed
version of history in which Jews are presented as innocent victims,
people who deserve and should be given great support and help, and
that
the "lesson," so-called, of the "holocaust" is never do anything that
Jewish groups object to.

KAS: I've often noted that Americans in general, and American students
in particular, can always give you the "six million" figure for Jewish
losses in World War II. But if you ask them how many Russians died, or
how many Americans died, or how many British people died, they just
give
you a blank stare.

MW: Yes, it's a point I've made many times: the "six million" figure
is
repeated incessantly. It's an inaccurate and it's a mythical figure.
But
it's repeated constantly. Americans have no corresponding
understanding,
or almost no Americans have any corresponding knowledge of the
suffering
of other people. It's all part and parcel of what I call a kind of
"victimization hierarchy" in America, in which Jews are sort of number
one, and then other groups, depending on their status in society, are
further down the list. It's a dangerous and skewed version of history
that clouds everything that we do.

KAS: So you would definitely state that Jewish groups have distorted
and/or exaggerated their losses during World War II?

MW: No question. At the conference, for example, two years ago, former
Congressman McCloskey went into great detail about how the
Anti-Defamation League in particular does everything that it can to
suppress, silence, and shut up anyone who speaks about history in a
way
that Jewish groups regard as contrary to their interests, particularly
on the Middle East. It's more and more obvious, I think, to people
around the world just how skewed America's policy -- but not only
policy, but its perception of the world -- is because of Jewish
Zionist
influence in our mass media, in our educational system, and in our
political system.

KAS: Are there any falsehoods about the "holocaust" which stand out as
particularly absurd or particularly worthy of correction for our
audience today?

MW: Well, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel. One story that
is
still told sometimes is this fable that the Germans made bars of soap
from the corpses of murdered Jews during World War II. And this story
has been given tremendous life over the years. It's appeared in
textbooks; it's appeared in important speeches. It's given great
prominence. It's utterly untrue. It's very lurid, it's ghastly -- but
completely untrue. And it's admitted to be untrue now, even by Jewish
groups -- if you press them on the matter. But the fact that it took
on
this tremendous life for so long is just typical of the way in which
the
most defamatory, horrible stories can be told about Germans or about
any
other non-Jewish group that's in disfavor at the moment -- without
correction, without fear of contradiction.

In the years right after World War II, and at the Nuremburg Trials, it
was claimed that people were killed in gas chambers in camps all over
Europe, including Buchenwald, Dachau, Auschwitz, and so forth. Many of
these claims have just been quietly abandoned over the years: No one
seriously claims anymore that anyone was gassed at Dachau or
Buchenwald
or at camps in Germany proper. One of the interesting aspects of this
is
that the so-called "eyewitnesses" and testimony and evidence for these
claims is therefore obviously not true.

KAS: And yet people were punished for those alleged crimes.

MW: Right. People were punished for those alleged crimes. This is just
part and parcel of this distortion; there are numerous examples. For
years, at Auschwitz, it was officially claimed that four million
people
were killed there, and that was supposedly proven at the Nuremberg
Trials in 1945-1946. In recent years, the numbers have been
drastically
reduced. They're still dropping down. Oftentimes the response to that
is
to say "So what if it's one million or four million or 100,000 or even
two?" There's an argument to be made for that, but the essential point
isn't over quibbling about numbers or anything like that, although
that's what historians are supposed to do. The essential point really,
I
think, is the way in which there's this tremendous political capital
made out of one chapter of history, designed to gain sympathy and
support. And the result has been a massive shakedown, kind of a
blackmail that's resulted in billions of dollars extracted from
Switzerland, from Germany, from European corporations, and from
American
taxpayers.

KAS: It's a kind of moral blackmail, I think.

MW: And some Jewish writers have even used those very terms. One of
the
striking things -- and Americans, I think need to understand this --
is
that the views of history that we are very used to, and comfortable
with, are not universal. The view of Middle East history that comes
from
the movie Exodus or the insights on European history that come from
the
movie The Sound of Music are gross distortions. They're just
perversions
of the truth. They may be very comfortable for many Americans to
believe, but they're not only perversions of the truth: Around the
world, there's an increasing awareness that how America looks at the
world and the Middle East is just out of line. Unfortunately, many
Americans still haven't "gotten it." Fortunately, millions more
Americans, I think, are "getting it." It's obvious, I think, to anyone
who has spent much time living overseas, that how the Middle East
situation is presented in the daily press is very different than it is
here in the American press.

KAS: In a moment, I'd like to talk about the linkage between Holocaust
Revisionism and the present situation in the Middle East, but first
I'd
just like to say that when you talk about "the 'holocaust'" it seems
to
me that the objection that should be raised is not so much to the word
"holocaust" but to the word "the" -- the article that precedes it. As
if
it's the only suffering of any national group in history!

MW: Yes, that's right. You know, the word 'holocaust' when used to
apply
collectively to what happened to Europe's Jews in World War II, didn't
come into popular usage until the 1970s. Normally, with the passage of
time, particularly horrible or gruesome or dark chapters of history
tend
to recede into the past and recede in importance. But just the
opposite
has happened with regard to what's called "the holocaust." You're
right,
even the very use of this term in this way is to give a kind of label
to
what was really a lot of individual things that happened rather than
some overarching phenomenon.

KAS: It seems to me that the suffering of the Germans after World War
II
certainly exceeded in scope anything that happened to the Jews. And
also
what happened to the Ukrainians in the pre-war period was horrific.

MW: I think the evidence is clear that more Germans than Jews were
killed during World War II. One of the things that was an important
beginning experience in my life was, when I was living in Europe, to
learn for the first time about the tremendous suffering, killings, and
expulsions that took place -- the victimization of Germans and other
Eastern Europeans in what is now Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and so
forth
in 1945 to 1948. We hear almost nothing about that in America. And
again, that's just part of the tremendous distortion, perversion, and
skewing of history that we see.

KAS: Isn't it true that in some parts of the world -- many parts of
the
world, perhaps -- it's actually a crime now to question the Jewish
view
of events during World War II?

MW: This is a point that the IHR has publicized a lot. In some
countries
-- Germany, France, Holland -- it's a crime to, as they say, "deny the
holocaust." The amazing thing is that it's only one chapter of
history:
For the sake of argument, suppose for a moment that the so-called
"holocaust deniers," the revisionists, are wrong. Justice is not
justice
unless it's applied equally. To criminalize dissident views about just
one chapter of history, and not others, is a form of injustice. People
today in Europe have been, and are, fined, exiled, imprisoned, for
expressing skepticism or dissident views on this chapter of history.
It's an outrage. The very fact that it's hardly known in America is in
itself an expression of the tremendous power that put those laws into
effect in the first place.

KAS: It's a strange kind of "truth" that has to be protected by laws
and
guns and prisons.

MW: Indeed, yes.

KAS: There is something going in Australia now. The Adelaide Institute
Web site is being forced off?

MW: Just the other day, the Federal Court in Australia ordered
Frederick
Töben, who runs something called the Adelaide Institute -- it's a
Holocaust Revisionist Web site -- to shut down the site and to
eliminate
everything on his site and on any other site that questions whether
people were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz, that questions
whether
the "holocaust" occurred -- I think I'm quoting from the language of
the
court ruling. It's outrageous. This was considered a violation of the
so-called "Racial Discrimination Act" in Australia. Töben tried to
argue
that the Act shouldn't apply because Jews constitute a religious
group.
But the Jewish organizations insisted that Jews should be regarded as
a
racial group. That alone is rather interesting because, when it is to
the advantage of Jewish groups, they will insist just the opposite.

And the law in Australia is similar to the laws in other countries: It
merely requires that one or two Jews claim to feel offended, and the
law
goes into effect. Well, a lot of things on the Internet are offensive
to
a lot of people. The fact that it's applied in this way, and that
Jewish
groups take advantage of it in this way, and that the courts uphold
their protests, is again an expression of the kind of special
treatment,
the privileged treatment, that Jewish groups receive in Australia and
everywhere in the Western world.


On our next program, we will continue our conversation with Mr. Weber
with a discussion of the impact of Jewish power -- and Jewish history
distortion -- on American Middle Eastern policy and on the looming war
in that region. Be sure to be listening one week from today.

If you'd like more information on the Institute for Historical Review,
you may write to IHR, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, or visit
the
Institute's Web site at www.ihr.org <http://www.ihr.org>.

Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on
thinking free.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe

>
>Hitler came to power with a far lower minority than that. Then he
>"vanquished" his adversaries as this author admits earlier.

The Jews control you media and your mind.

>
>People who like to be sheep do. I wouldn't tell our "founding fathers"
>his above statement.

"By the time Hitler reached the position of leadership, Germany had
lost half its territory, all of its colonies, and most of its
industries. Inflation had reduced the German mark to a joke. The
economy was in a shambles, and Industry and commerce was at a
standstill. Foreign carpetbaggers were picking off German assets at
bargain prices. Unemployment was everywhere, and those who worked did
so for slave wages. The victorious international powers who won World
War I were stripping the Germans of everything, including their pride.
Germany had no army, no navy, no allies, and no influence in the
world. Reparations paid annually to the victorious Allies were
designed to keep Germany in a state of poverty and submission.
Germany couldn't even defend itself against international theft. When
the German government couldn't meet reparation payments, the French
simply marched in and seized the industrial Ruhr; sending black troops
as a deliberate insult.
Germany couldn't even defend itself against internal takeovers.
Jewish-Communist rowdies, taking directions for the Jewish Bolsheviks
in Russia, roamed the German streets at will, some even took over the
reins of local governments, and street riots were a regular
occurrence. A worldwide boycott of anything German was organized by
foreign Jews to block even modest economic recovery. To the German
citizenry, the situation was hopeless.
Then Adolf Hitler took over the leadership of the country. Within a
few years, Germany became an economic powerhouse in Europe while the
rest of the world struggled under a worldwide depression. Communist
agitators and street rowdies either went to work or went to jail.
Germany experienced a miraculous transformation.
German industries reassumed their leadership role in the world
economy. The German mark was stabilized and became a powerful
exchange medium in world commerce. Everything from agriculture to
banking was modernized. Newly constructed high speed autobahns
connected bustling cities, and newly built trains whistled through the
countryside carrying passengers and freight to newly refurbished
cities supplying their newly rejuvenated commerce. Unemployment
simply disappeared.
Prosperity was distributed to every class of citizens. Artists and
writers flourished. New schools, theatres, churches, auditoriums, and
stadiums were filled with the prosperous and proud Germans. The
result: citizens jammed the streets whenever Hitler passed. Where a
few years before people were afraid to leave their homes because of
the violence, Hitler and his entourage paraded in open cars without
fear while German crowds shouted and cheered his arrival.
No leader in history ever unified so many millions of people to a
common peacetime cause and mutual cooperation as Hitler did in
Germany. No leader in history ever did as much for the common people
under his charge as Hitler did for the Germans...
Morghus

>
>Just because Hitler said something does not make it fact. Do you think
>he was god or something, that everything he says is gosipel?

Did your media tell you Hitler was in favor of big lies? Did your
media tell you the truth?

>
> > Your media (which is controlled by Jews) are the ones who are lying.
> > If they were telling the truth they would tell you that Hitler
> > believed the Jews control the media. Why don't they tell you that?
>
>Maybe no one is interested in talking about Hitler so much anymore,
>except you.

You are intellectually dishonest.

> The media don't do stories about Stalin, Mao, Tojo etc.
>anymore either. In a couple of years they will forget about Saddam
>Husien as well.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

Tim Howard
2006-03-24 03:36:01 EST
Topaz wrote:

> It's mainly the religious people who are against feminism and
> homosexual perversion. It says in the Bible that women should not have
> authority over men. Islam is the same way. The problem with religions
> is that they always fight each other. Christians fight against Muslims
> more than they fight those who are for homosexual perversion and
> feminism. Protestants and Catholics had bloody conflicts, and the
> different sects of Islam fight each other.

One good thing about organized religion. You see Topaz, they all want
to convert people to their way of thinking and don't want competion. If
they ever stoped "fighting each other", as you say, we would all be in
big trouble. Actually I do not mind people speaking out for their
religious beliefs; everyone has a right to believe how they how they
want. My problem is those who try to force it on others.

> What we should do is explain why women should not have authority
> over men, and not merely by saying God says so. Here is my
> explanation:

Right, just because the bible or the koran says something, doesn't make
it true. But now about your "explaination"

> Women are attracted to what is hard.
(Rest of this drivil about men being hard and women being soft sniped)

I won't do any obvious jokes about this and other statements, but you
sure do seem obsessed with men being hard...
Make all the blanket statements you want, but you cannot say truthfully
how all men feel and how all women feel and why they feel that way.
Women who stand up for themselves are not unattractive.
>
> Religious societies like men to be harder and women to be softer.
> Liberal societies don't agree with that at all. They go out of their
> way to try to make everyone equal. They have affirmative action so
> more women can be policemen.

Ahh back to your main obsession. What is is with you and female police
officers? Seriously did you have some negative experience with one once
that turned you into what you are today? Was she a Jewish police officer?

> Getting back to women in authority.
Just because you and many men don't believe women should be in positions
of authority doesn't mean it is true in a naturalistic sense. Maybe in
the pre-civilization days when brute force was how everything was done,
but we have evolved beyone that. Now brains and personality are how we
govern and are governed. Women are just as good at that game as men.
>

>>>As long as we have sound men-and we National Socialists will see to
>>>that-there will be no women throwing hand grenades in Germany, no
>>>women sharp-shooters. That is not equality for women, rather their
>>>debasement...
>>
>>Yes, its too bad we can't get men to adopt that attitude as well.
>>
>
> Men should be good warriors. They made a new movie proving it. "The
> Hills Have Eyes". It looks like you need to learn from it.
>
I don't watch bad remakes of old horror films.
>
>>Notice, as usual, Topaz doesn't answer my point but simply reposts
>>quotes by other racists and anti-semites.
>
>
> No doubt the reposts answered the point very well.
>
Only in your own mind.
>
>>There are pleanty of reasons for that besides some Jewish conspiracy.
>
>
> Here are some quotes from "The Shadow of Zog" by Israel Shamir:
>
"Israel Shamir" is a fraud. He is a Swedish citizen whos real name is
Adam Ermash, although he uses many alieses. He believes many wierd
conspiracies, including "blood libel"--that Jews kill Christians and use
their blood in rituals. Though he did live in Israel in the 80s, much
of his stories about living there in the 70s and what he supposidly did
there have been proven false. He has long associated with extremist
groups of both the left and right and when he is with one, he says one
thing, and when with another he says the other thing. In short he plays
them off one another for his own gain. Not a reliable source.

> Gandhi could be condemned as 'racist', for he 'noticed' the
> privileged position of the British in India. By PC logic, a good
> American should reply to Mahatma: yes, there are some rich and
> powerful Brits in India, but there are also poor Tommy Atkinses,
> governesses, honest administrators, writers like Kipling and Orwell.
> On the other hand, there are powerful and rich Rajas, important
> Brahmins. How do you dare, sir, to demand 'de-colonisation'! This is
> sheer anti-English racism!

The English in India were there because the British government was
running it. It was their colony. Israel might be our alley and be
influencial in our foreign policy but that is not the same thing as
being colonized. We have many many allies throughout the world--are
they controling our nation any more/less than Israel does?
>
>>Prove this is the reason.
>
>
> See the movie. "They Live". At the meeting it wasn't all "them"
> there were some traitors of our kind with them.

I doubt the makers of that film had any anti-jewish agenda behind it.

>>Lots of stuff praising Hitler saving Germany sniped.
>>
>>He could have done those things for all of Germany. He could have
>>united all people in Germany together against the world instead of just
>>aryans.
>
>
> Germany should be for the Germans.
>
> Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on October 24, 1933
>
> "Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German
> nation."
>
(snip) The Jews, gays, communists, gypsies, mentally/physcically
handicapped etc. were part of "the German nation" too.
>
>>But no, he had to eliminate, drive out, or imprison all who
>>would not convert to his side. Sure he may at first have tried to win
>>over some opponents, like the unionists in the May Day story mentioned,
>>but soon all those who disagreed were eliminated. His plebicites were a
>>fraud. Just remember this famous quote by Martin Niemoeller:
>>
>>First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
>> because I was not a communist;
>>Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
>> because I was not a socialist;
>>Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
>> because I was not a trade unionist;
>>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
>> because I was not a Jew;
>>Then they came for me-
>> and there was no one left to speak out for me.
>
>
> Martin Niemoeller wrote that after the war. He died in 1984.

Of course he did, it was a poem looking back at the war, and what does
it matter when he died?

He is certainly no proof of a holo.

I did not intend to quote him as proof.

The USA locked up the Japanese and
> others during the war.
>
Yes that was wrong as well.

>>> Your media (which is controlled by Jews) are the ones who are lying.
>>>If they were telling the truth they would tell you that Hitler
>>>believed the Jews control the media. Why don't they tell you that?
>>
>>Maybe no one is interested in talking about Hitler so much anymore,
>>except you.
>
>
> You are intellectually dishonest.
>
How so? All you do is quote old nazis and neo-nazi talk radio hosts and
telling me to get deep political/social insight from sci-fi and horror
movies you call me intellectually dishonest?

Topaz
2006-03-25 10:55:13 EST
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:36:01 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.howard@cox.net>
wrote:


>One good thing about organized religion. You see Topaz, they all want
>to convert people to their way of thinking and don't want competion. If
>they ever stoped "fighting each other", as you say, we would all be in
>big trouble.

If they stopped fighting each other the homosexual perverts would be
in big trouble.

> Actually I do not mind people speaking out for their
>religious beliefs; everyone has a right to believe how they how they
>want. My problem is those who try to force it on others.
>
>
>Right, just because the bible or the koran says something, doesn't make
>it true. But now about your "explaination"
>
>I won't do any obvious jokes about this and other statements, but you
>sure do seem obsessed with men being hard...
>Make all the blanket statements you want, but you cannot say truthfully
>how all men feel and how all women feel and why they feel that way.
>Women who stand up for themselves are not unattractive.
>
>Ahh back to your main obsession. What is is with you and female police
>officers? Seriously did you have some negative experience with one once
>that turned you into what you are today? Was she a Jewish police officer?

There didn't used to be female policemen. Now there are, because of
the Jews.

Charlie's Angels:
"It was the first time where you saw beautiful women who were smart,
who were strong, who were sensitive, who could do roles in jobs that
were only exclusively the domain of men," producer Leonard Goldberg
says about the TV series that he executive produced along with the
contemporary films.

>Just because you and many men don't believe women should be in positions
>of authority doesn't mean it is true in a naturalistic sense. Maybe in
>the pre-civilization days when brute force was how everything was done,
>but we have evolved beyone that. Now brains and personality are how we
>govern and are governed. Women are just as good at that game as men.

Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:
"German women, German men !
It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the
Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women.
Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not
forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National
Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily
politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very
unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic
intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not
respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the
woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different
value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German
woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best
sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other
areas than the man.
The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but
also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in
the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices
and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best
suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless
devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.
The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the
past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea
of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread
winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the
man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is
not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her
talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the
frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men
were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to
the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men
always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all
great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination
have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually
loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the
woman.
It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must
be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our
attitude toward women.
The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in
government, politics, economics and social relations has not left
women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought
impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some
good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that
are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations
have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set
in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a
distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with
former ideals.
A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary
and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most
suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious
duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can
continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of
the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the
builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's
source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place
for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,
in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that
those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in
the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their
abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other
ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially
reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to
fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.
The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.
It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no
intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer
and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.
But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in
motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the
living mother of a family who gives the state children.
German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning
to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more
rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected
to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and
her daily bread is not a good trade.
A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in
our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now
the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most
evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's
birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without
emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The
government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the
resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental
change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is
responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying
about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each
elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by
1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are
the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it
will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine
the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.
We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our
national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The
national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation
on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the
woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends
to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of
our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our
blood is assured..."

>
>I don't watch bad remakes of old horror films.
>
>Only in your own mind.

> "Israel Shamir" is a fraud. He is a Swedish citizen whos real name is
>Adam Ermash, although he uses many alieses. He believes many wierd
>conspiracies, including "blood libel"--that Jews kill Christians and use
>their blood in rituals.

That was proven true during the Spanish Inquisition.

> Though he did live in Israel in the 80s, much
>of his stories about living there in the 70s and what he supposidly did
>there have been proven false. He has long associated with extremist
>groups of both the left and right and when he is with one, he says one
>thing, and when with another he says the other thing. In short he plays
>them off one another for his own gain. Not a reliable source.

We all tend to gear our words to our audience. We should never be
deceitful or anything though.

>
>The English in India were there because the British government was
>running it. It was their colony. Israel might be our alley and be

The Jewish controlled media says the Jews are America's only friends
in the Middle East. The truth is that before the Jews America didn't
have any enemies in the Middle East.

>influencial in our foreign policy but that is not the same thing as
>being colonized. We have many many allies throughout the world--are
>they controling our nation any more/less than Israel does?

Who can say "we" when referring to the USA? Definately the Jews.
Maybe women and minorities. Certainly not a White man:


The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University

Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...

The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>

>
>I doubt the makers of that film had any anti-jewish agenda behind it.

You are probably right. But they hit the nail pretty much on the
head anyway.
>
>(snip) The Jews, gays, communists, gypsies, mentally/physcically
>handicapped etc. were part of "the German nation" too.

Jews are mortal enemies. "Gays" are perverts. Communists are evil.
Gypsies are thieves. The mentally/physically handicapped are fine but
they shouldn't have children.

>
>Of course he did, it was a poem looking back at the war, and what does
>it matter when he died?

Nobody killed him.

>
>I did not intend to quote him as proof.
>
>Yes that was wrong as well.

>How so? All you do is quote old nazis and neo-nazi talk radio hosts and
>telling me to get deep political/social insight from sci-fi and horror
>movies you call me intellectually dishonest?

You should admit you are dishonest. Here are the facts you can't
deal with again:

It's easy to prove that the media is a pack of liars. If they were not
liars they would tell people that Hitler believed that the Jews
controlled the media. Why don't they? Here are some quotes from Mein
Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The
best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his character and
strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility which his name
arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be
reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his
newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells
the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some
greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate
falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and
duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of honor
which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is nearest
to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does
not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no
account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted,
slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this
mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all
Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on
the part of this race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of
our members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which
I had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Tim Howard
2006-03-25 18:54:31 EST
Topaz wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:36:01 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.howard@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>One good thing about organized religion. You see Topaz, they all want
>>to convert people to their way of thinking and don't want competion. If
>>they ever stoped "fighting each other", as you say, we would all be in
>>big trouble.
>
>
> If they stopped fighting each other the homosexual perverts would be
> in big trouble.
>

Prove that there are a greater percentage of "homosexual perverts" than
heterosexual perverts. Or is all homosexuality perverse to you.
>>
>>I won't do any obvious jokes about this and other statements, but you
>>sure do seem obsessed with men being hard...
>>Make all the blanket statements you want, but you cannot say truthfully
>>how all men feel and how all women feel and why they feel that way.
>>Women who stand up for themselves are not unattractive.
>>
>>Ahh back to your main obsession. What is is with you and female police
>>officers? Seriously did you have some negative experience with one once
>>that turned you into what you are today? Was she a Jewish police officer?
>
>
> There didn't used to be female policemen. Now there are, because of
> the Jews.
>
Okay don't answer the question.

> Charlie's Angels:
> "It was the first time where you saw beautiful women who were smart,
> who were strong, who were sensitive, who could do roles in jobs that
> were only exclusively the domain of men," producer Leonard Goldberg
> says about the TV series that he executive produced along with the
> contemporary films.
>
That awful show set women's lib back decades. It was considered even at
the time to be very chauvanistic and it certainly doesn't hold up well
today. I doubt that producer had such nobel goals in mind.

>>Just because you and many men don't believe women should be in positions
>>of authority doesn't mean it is true in a naturalistic sense. Maybe in
>>the pre-civilization days when brute force was how everything was done,
>>but we have evolved beyone that. Now brains and personality are how we
>>govern and are governed. Women are just as good at that game as men.
>
>
> Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:

(most of this crap sniped, but I will coment on this)

We today must begin worrying
> about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each
> elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by
> 1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are
> the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it
> will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine
> the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.>
>
Some people still say this today, as Goebbles did in 1933. He obviously
was wrong. Today there are 83 million people in Germany, and according
to the U.S. Census Bureau's international database, and the CIA's World
Factbook, 92% of them are Germanic. Less than 1% are Jewish btw.
>
>> "Israel Shamir" is a fraud. He is a Swedish citizen whos real name is
>>Adam Ermash, although he uses many alieses. He believes many wierd
>>conspiracies, including "blood libel"--that Jews kill Christians and use
>>their blood in rituals.
>
>
> That was proven true during the Spanish Inquisition.

The Spanish Inquisition?? Boy you sure do love your violent religious
revolutions don't you. First you defend the Taliban's treatment of
women and now this. Anyway, "Shamir" claims it is still a contemporary
phenomenon.
>
>>Though he did live in Israel in the 80s, much
>>of his stories about living there in the 70s and what he supposidly did
>>there have been proven false. He has long associated with extremist
>>groups of both the left and right and when he is with one, he says one
>>thing, and when with another he says the other thing. In short he plays
>>them off one another for his own gain. Not a reliable source.
>
>
> We all tend to gear our words to our audience. We should never be
> deceitful or anything though.

I agree.
>
>>The English in India were there because the British government was
>>running it. It was their colony. Israel might be our alley and be
>
>
> The Jewish controlled media says the Jews are America's only friends
> in the Middle East. The truth is that before the Jews America didn't
> have any enemies in the Middle East.
>
Our media and politicians tell us that Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwit, UAE, and Yemen are our friends, or at least not enemies.
>
>>influencial in our foreign policy but that is not the same thing as
>>being colonized. We have many many allies throughout the world--are
>>they controling our nation any more/less than Israel does?
>
> Who can say "we" when referring to the USA? Definately the Jews.
> Maybe women and minorities. Certainly not a White man:
>
>
> The Origins of Political Correctness
> An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
>
> Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
> conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
> University
>
> Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
> victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
> rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
> does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
> to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
> think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
> denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
> homophobic.
>
The political correctness he referrs to is not only on the liberal side.
There are many issues the Democratic party and the media used to
endorce and now do not even talk about. Even political organizations
don't invoke these issues. Since 9/11 for example, no one talks anymore
about abuses by police in New York city, or hardly in any city for that
matter. Police are all now "heros". Also, no one suggests that
military spending is too high and should be cut--you would be deemed a
traitor if you said that these days. When there is criticism of the
Iraq war, those critics always go out of there way to praise the troops
and imphasize how they "support" them. No public figure is discouraging
people from signing up for the military. In political corect terms,
all communists are "old guard", capitalist are "reformers" all business
deregulation and capitalist economic plans are "reforms", anything
labeled "pro-growth" is good, any talk of urban planning and stopping
sprawl and cooporate influnece is "anti-growth" and bad. Anyone who
talks about raising taxes on the wealthy are criticized for wanting to
raise taxes, and the wealthly part is dropped off. Howabout breaking up
big monopolies, stopping unfair trade, increasing welfare spending for
the poor, bringing U.S. war criminals to justice, socialized medicine,
unionization, and many many other issues have been surpressed by
right-wing political correctness.

> You should admit you are dishonest. Here are the facts you can't
> deal with again:
>
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

Mein Kampf has nothing to do with fact. It was the opinions and
perspectives of one of the most evil persons in world history.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron