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.
(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!
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/
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
> >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."
> 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.
> 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.
> >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.