Discussion:
Hitler was A LIBERAL
(too old to reply)
The Party Of God
2004-04-26 13:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Another reason to round up all the Librals and put them into reeducation camps.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
Joe
2004-04-26 19:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Party Of God
Another reason to round up all the Librals and put them into reeducation camps.
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
I see why you use anonymous remailers. Everyone here knows that Hitler was
a Socialist. (sarcasm)
neptune3
2004-04-27 02:13:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
I see why you use anonymous remailers. Everyone here knows that Hitler was
a Socialist. (sarcasm)
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.

According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.

The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?

Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.

We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
Dale Eastman
2004-04-27 04:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Party Of God
Post by The Party Of God
Another reason to round up all the Librals and put them into reeducation
camps.
Post by The Party Of God
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.
I see why you use anonymous remailers. Everyone here knows that Hitler was
a Socialist. (sarcasm)
Damn. I drew the dividing line in the wrong place. I thought all
politician's and their parties were on the side of the line with the
other acute cases of grabpoweritus.
--
http://www.861.info/ <--- It's not going away.
neptune3
2004-04-28 09:43:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 04:20:29 GMT, Dale Eastman
Post by Dale Eastman
Damn. I drew the dividing line in the wrong place. I thought all
politician's and their parties were on the side of the line with the
other acute cases of grabpoweritus.
Many people think they arrive at their own ideas all by themselves,
when in fact their ideas are usually made for them by Hollywood. Take
two movies that are anti-leadership propaganda, Gladiator, and
Braveheart.

In Gladiator they show a corrupt leader of Rome, but would it be
corrupt if Maximus was the leader? That would be much better than
having the lame senators running Rome. And of course in Braveheart the
Scots should have make William their leader.

The purpose of the propaganda is to stop good people from wanting
power. The people who have the real power now, the bankers and the
media, are not threatened in the least by libertarians. But if there
was a leader that was really for the people they know they would be
put in their place.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
neptune3
2004-04-27 02:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Party Of God
Another reason to round up all the Librals and put them into reeducation camps.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:


"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."

"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."

"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."

"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponants against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteeen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponants known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."

When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
neptune3
2004-04-27 02:14:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:02:04 GMT, "\"The Right One\""
Accoding to th lefties he couldn;t have been a socialist
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."

"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
"The Right One"
2004-04-27 06:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Hey Carrick Adolf said he was a socialist

--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
The last ten years have been a decade
of diabolical decadence.
If You Support Paul Martin And The Liberals,
Then You Support Crime!
What example are you setting for your Children?
Post by neptune3
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:02:04 GMT, "\"The Right One\""
Accoding to th lefties he couldn;t have been a socialist
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



begin 666 p.gif
M1TE&.#EA"@$M`)$``/___P```#E(MP```"'Y! ``````+ `````*`2T```+_
MA(^IR^T/HYRTVHNSWKS[#X;B2);FB:;JRK;N"\?R3-?VC>?ZSO?^#PP*A\1<
MX.@(%"/*2C/Q9!R5T<\4>:A"M)1I%HMHBD'<+ZS<0$/5CR=XX69GW(;W5MZ&
MUA5V`#Z?=.8T\0<7%IA%0K?7M5$UQA?IF/A&%>7EAX1Y"&99A[6YF2E66>K'
MIYE*-4K)***@D[*WG*^'DIR[I[VO?("TEJ.4R(>PMZG+PV%IIH^PQI>^E,
M:IB,;/8<&QO<6JW]U:R\&$TG>H@>MZ<+W:C<#M\K18TN'8Y=/XK_.GX;C^H,
MG+UW^<K1TY,+$YI?VKJ]*Q1OT<"&:0[V\X>1HIZ,_^OD,9K&,5W *P^M?1R9
M4926A1M!&J0TJ.3):_-F7A2X,A]!3AXG_O/WDAS*6A.%***@R(=*/%@1)[2I (
M]:8KA_U6V61V\=RGK?1>;OM(U2N_JQ:#+JUE;F9:KD]5`2LEC%<K8^&RR0V5
M<!O+8ZF,G2.V+N$58G\'T[T+RNTNK=R^#B9)Z^<,B$O<569!>47FRULX:^;!
MV/.%/J+)D"Z-.K7JU:Q;NWX-.[;LV;1KVRXM(#<``09X]V[@&WB,S8 ZJ F-
MF4APW;H?-&?PW,.?TS$C:Z >[7:&X+]W1^"^`#R'0L25"IQ347L'\=V]]W[N
M.[=XWM'E'Z ?/_KAT)YF)?\&O%]DC*ED%2J:^ >***@8O)\A]?TU#'`GON-;=<
M=Q)2V!Y^%;8WU'G81)628SL9A5V 9"EED#C]D8-/#!?>Q^%O$KHWH7SQ(6"C
M>""B*!-.]0A3HF0=Z@-D3F II)-82;WPHH4*V <=C#1*&2./'!E%T5CP'(?D
MD3_J=!Y/(7Y5U) P@'>CDPFD^:24\^&(B)!8/FC2ENF569-&8"*T)#]*AM3"
MAC2R26AX;AY*I8X]C16,*9&8A1&)IS4UIR$@NG2BD$S"QQR%GFJX9J?YC8JC
M?FPA1R X932H$&F&P;*J8H?)9=Z"<<3U%F'J&;&K:CG^"***@Y+;(XIE-=K
?LCT:(*=LL\X^"VVTTDY+;;767HMMMMINRRT%!0``.P``
`
end
neptune3
2004-04-28 09:45:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:25:10 GMT, "\"The Right One\""
Post by "The Right One"
Hey Carrick Adolf said he was a socialist
lib·er·al·ism n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.

2.
a A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and
the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
from
arbitrary authority.
b The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.

3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and
the
gold standard.

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
John Carrick
2004-04-28 20:37:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:25:10 GMT, "\"The Right One\""
Hey(,) (Mr.) Carrick(,) Adolf said he was a socialist(.)
[1] And the rulers of China for the last 45+ years have called their
country "The People's Republic of China", and refer to the governing
crowd there as "The People's Party".

Do you accept whatever name a political alliance applies to itself?

Do you not understand that parties may have ulterior motives in
selecting particular names for themselves?

Can you not see why every party would prefer to be known as a party of
the people...a party that represents society...to some degree a
*socialist* party? Hell, the new Canadian Conservative Party is
proudly a party of the people!

Its leaders are not honest enough to say, "We represent the selfish
business crowd, allied with religious crazies." They say that they
are a party that will govern on behalf of Canadian society. That
makes them proud "socialists".

[2] N.A.Z.I. translates loosely to "National Socialist Party".

This allows totally ignorant, completely right-wing partisan crazies
to conclude that Hitler was on the political left.

Such people don't understand the saying: "If it walks like a duck and
talks like a duck, it's a duck."

In naming their political party, the Nazis did *talk* like a populist
party of the left. They chose to include "socialist" in the party
name.

Therefore, they did "talk like a duck".

The next question is, "How did they govern?"

The answer is that they abolished all union activity and hounded
genuine socialists and communists to their deaths by the thousands.
Further, they co-operated fully with German industrialists like Albert
Speer.

When the Second World War ended with the Germans defeated,
war crimes trials were held at Nurenburg. The defendants were the
leaders of the NAZI party and their associates. (This included all
those who were still alive, or who, like Eichmann, had not escaped
capture.)

Alongside political leaders like Goring and Hess, and certain military
leaders, who was in the dock? Why a number of German industrialists!
And they received the harsh prison sentences that they had earned by
co-operatring with Hitler and his right-wing crowd.

Germany operated *state capitalism* from 1933 until 1945.

To suggest that the Third Reich was truly socialist is to make
yourself a figure of fun. It is simply stupid.

Are you not aware that, some months after signing a non-aggression
pact, Hitler launched an all-out war on the U.S.S.R.? That's just how
socialist a crowd the NAZIS were!

Only someone who is prepared to re-write history, and who is so drunk
with right-wing notions that he cannot think straight, could consider
Adolph Hitler *any* sort of liberal or any sort of left-winger.

[3] Once again, it is easy to see why you don't post under your own
name.

You can take no pride in any of your political positions, and you
cannot afford to sign your posts honestly.
.
"The Right One"
2004-04-29 00:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by neptune3
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:25:10 GMT, "\"The Right One\""
Hey(,) (Mr.) Carrick(,) Adolf said he was a socialist(.)
[1] And the rulers of China for the last 45+ years have called their
country "The People's Republic of China", and refer to the governing
crowd there as "The People's Party".
Do you accept whatever name a political alliance applies to itself?
Do you not understand that parties may have ulterior motives in
selecting particular names for themselves?
Can you not see why every party would prefer to be known as a party of
the people...a party that represents society...to some degree a
*socialist* party? Hell, the new Canadian Conservative Party is
proudly a party of the people!
Its leaders are not honest enough to say, "We represent the selfish
business crowd, allied with religious crazies." They say that they
are a party that will govern on behalf of Canadian society. That
makes them proud "socialists".
[2] N.A.Z.I. translates loosely to "National Socialist Party".
This allows totally ignorant, completely right-wing partisan crazies
to conclude that Hitler was on the political left.
Such people don't understand the saying: "If it walks like a duck and
talks like a duck, it's a duck."
In naming their political party, the Nazis did *talk* like a populist
party of the left. They chose to include "socialist" in the party
name.
Therefore, they did "talk like a duck".
The next question is, "How did they govern?"
The answer is that they abolished all union activity and hounded
genuine socialists and communists to their deaths by the thousands.
Further, they co-operated fully with German industrialists like Albert
Speer.
When the Second World War ended with the Germans defeated,
war crimes trials were held at Nurenburg. The defendants were the
leaders of the NAZI party and their associates. (This included all
those who were still alive, or who, like Eichmann, had not escaped
capture.)
Alongside political leaders like Goring and Hess, and certain military
leaders, who was in the dock? Why a number of German industrialists!
And they received the harsh prison sentences that they had earned by
co-operatring with Hitler and his right-wing crowd.
Germany operated *state capitalism* from 1933 until 1945.
To suggest that the Third Reich was truly socialist is to make
yourself a figure of fun. It is simply stupid.
Are you not aware that, some months after signing a non-aggression
pact, Hitler launched an all-out war on the U.S.S.R.? That's just how
socialist a crowd the NAZIS were!
Only someone who is prepared to re-write history, and who is so drunk
with right-wing notions that he cannot think straight, could consider
Adolph Hitler *any* sort of liberal or any sort of left-winger.
[3] Once again, it is easy to see why you don't post under your own
name.
You can take no pride in any of your political positions, and you
cannot afford to sign your posts honestly.
.
State capitalism is not capitalism
Under Hitler the people had no democracy
Hence socialism. Therefore to refer to the third Reich as being some thing
from the far right is ludicrous and silly.
Socialism is state control such as we have here in Canada
Conservatism advocates freedom from state control

I am beginning to wonder if you use you name
What if I come to Cheeeraranna and buy you a cup of tea
Do I look for John Carrick?
--
Terry Pearson<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<My name
http://www.rightpoint.org
The last ten years have been a decade
of diabolical decadence.
If You Support Paul Martin And The Liberals,
Then You Support Crime!
What example are you setting for your Children?
neptune3
2004-04-29 02:44:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:47:04 GMT, "\"The Right One\""
Post by "The Right One"
State capitalism is not capitalism
Here is excerpt from his memoirs General Leon Degrelle, former
leader of the Belgian contingent of the Waffen-SS:

"One of the first labor reforms to benefit the German workers
was the establishment of annual paid vacation. The Socialist French
Popular Front, in 1936, would make a show of having invented the
concept of paid vacation, and stingily at that, only one week per
year. But Adolf Hitler originated the idea, and two or three times as
generously, from the first month of his coming to power in 1933.

Every factory employee from then on would have the legal right
to a paid vacation. Until then, in Germany paid holidays where they
applied at all did not exceed four or five days, and nearly half the
younger workers had no leave entitlement at all. Hitler, on the other
hand, favored the younger workers. Vacations were not handed out
blindly, and the youngest workers were granted time off more
generously. It was a humane action; a young person has more need of
rest and fresh air for the development of his strength and vigor just
coming into maturity. Basic vacation time was twelve
days, and then from age 25 on it went up to 18 days. After ten years
with the company, workers got 21 days, three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.

These figures may have been surpassed in the more than half a
century since then, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms. As
for overtime hours, they no longer were paid, as they were everywhere
else in Europe at that time, at just the regular hourly rate. The
work
day itself had been reduced to a tolerable norm of eight hours,
since
the forty-hour week as well, in Europe, was first initiated by
Hitler.
And beyond that legal limit, each additional hour had to be paid at a
considerably increased rate...

Dismissal of an employee was no longer left as before the the
sole discretion of the employer. In that era, workers' rights to job
security were non-existent. Hitler saw to it that those rights were
strictly spelled out. The employer had to announce any dismissal four
weeks in advance. The employee then had a period of up to two months
in which to lodge a protest. The dismissal could also be annulled by
the Honor of Work Tribunal. What was the Honor of Work Tribunal? Also
called the Tribunal of Social Honor, it was the third of the three
great elements or layers of protection and defense that were to the
benefit of every German worker. The first was the Council
of Trust. The second was the Labor Commission.

The Council of Trust was charged with attending to the
establishment and the development of a real community spirit between
management and labor. In any business enterprise, the Reich law
stated, the employer and head of the enterprise, the employees and
workers, personnel of the enterprise, shall work jointly towards the
goal of the enterprise and the common good of
the nation...

Thus from 1933 on, the German worker had a system of justice
at his disposal that was created especially for him and would
adjudicate all grave infractions of the social duties based on the
idea of the Aryan enterprise community. Examples of these violations
of social honor are cases where the employer, abusing his power,
displayed ill will towards his staff or impugned the honor of his
subordinates, cases where staff members threatened work harmony by
spiteful agitation; the publication by members of the Council of
confidential information regarding the enterprise which they
became cognizant of in the course of discharging their duties.
Thirteen Tribunes of Social Honor were established, corresponding
with
the thirteen commissions...

From then on the worker knew that exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or offending his honor would no longer be
allowed. He had to fulfill certain obligations to the community, but
they were obligations that applied to all members of the enterprise,
from the chief executive down to the messenger boy. Germany's workers
at last had clearly established social rights that were arbitrated by
a Labor Commission and enforced by a Tribunal of Honor. Although
effected in an atmosphere of justice and moderation, it was a
revolution.

This was only the end of 1933, and already the first effects
could be felt. The factories and shops large and small were reformed
or transformed in conformity with the strictest standards of
cleanliness and hygiene; the interior areas, so often dilapidated,
opened to light; playing fields constructed; rest areas made
available
where one could converse at one's ease and relax during rest periods;
employee cafeterias; proper dressing rooms.

With time, that is to say in three years, those achievements
would take on dimensions never before imagined; more than 2,000
factories refitted and beautified; 23,000 work premises modernized;
800 buildings designed exclusively for meetings; 1,200 playing
fields;
13,000 sanitary facilities with running water; 17,000 cafeterias.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors
would foster and closely and continuously supervise these renovations
and installations.

The large industrial establishments moreover had been given
the obligation of preparing areas not only suitable for sports
activities of all kinds, but provided with swimming pools as well.
Germany had come a long way from the sinks for washing one's face and
the dead tired workers, grown old before their time, crammed into
squalid courtyards during work breaks.

In order to ensure the natural development of the working
class, physical education courses were instituted for the younger
workers; 8,000 such were organized. Technical training would be
equally emphasized, with the creation of hundreds of work schools,
technical courses and examinations of professional competence, and
competitive examinations for the best workers for which large prizes
were awarded.

To rejuvenate young and old alike, Hitler ordered that a
gigantic vacation organization for workers be set up. Hundreds of
thousands of workers would be able every summer to relax on and and
sea. Magnificent cruise ships would be built. Special trains would
carry vacationers to the mountains and to the seashore. The
locomotives that hauled the innumerable worker-tourists in
just a few years of travel in Germany would log a distance equivalent
to fifty-four times around the world!

The cost of these popular excursions was nearly insignificant,
thanks to greatly reduced rates authorized by the Reichsbank.

Didn't these reforms lack something? Were some of them flawed
by errors and blunders? It is possible. But what did a blunder amount
to alongside the immense gains?

That this transformation of the working class smacked of
authoritarianism? That's exactly right. But the German people were
sick and tired of socialism and anarchy. To feel commanded didn't
bother them a bit. In fact, people have always liked having a strong
man guide them. One thing for certain is that the turn of mind of the
working class, which was still almost two-thirds non-Nazi in 1933,
had
completely changed.

The Belgian author Marcel Laloire would note: "When you make
your way through the cities of Germany and go into the working-class
districts, go through the factories, the construction yards, you are
astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting the Hitler
insignia, to see so many flags with the Swastika, black on a bright
red background, in the most populous districts." The Labor Front that
Hitler imposed on all of the workers and employers of the Reich was
for the most part received with favor.

And already the steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the
National Labor Service could be seen gleaming along the highways. The
National Labor Service had been created by Hitler out of thin air to
bring together for a few months in absolute equality, and in the same
uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the poorest
families. All had to perform the same work and were subject to the
same discipline, even the same pleasures and the same physical and
moral development. On the same construction sites and in the same
living quarters, they had become conscious of their commonality, had
come to understand one another, and had swept away their
old prejudices of class and caste. After this hitch in the National
Labor Service they all began to live as comrades, the workers knowing
that the rich man's son was not a monster, and the young lad from the
wealthy family knowing that the worker's son had honor just
like any other young fellow who had been more generously
favored by birth. Social hatred was disappearing, and a socially
united people was being born.

Hitler could already go into factories, something no man of the
so-called Right before him would have risked doing, and hold forth to
the mob of workers, tens of thousands of them at a time, as in the
Siemens works. In contrast to the von Papens and other country
gentlemen, he might tell them, "In my youth I was a worker like you.
And in my heart of hearts, I have remained what I was then." In the
course of his twelve years in power, no incident ever occurred at any
factory Adolf Hitler ever visited. When Hitler was among the people,
he was at home, and he was received like the member of
the family who had been most successful."
Post by "The Right One"
Under Hitler the people had no democracy
Democracy is a cruel joke when the Jews control the media.

"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher, Der Stürmer, #34/1939.

"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in
1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little
more of the gist of his message. I quote:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas
suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical
result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast
numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to
live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .

"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains
a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the
sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical
thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons .
.
. who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness
old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. .
.

"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people
expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The voice of
the
people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for
it
by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who
understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .

"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making
the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the
community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life."
--
end of quote --

I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the
way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that
propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of others
always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It is not
for
nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as they were in
the
time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose Bernays' book to quote
is
that it provides a more concise and clear summary, in a few quotable
paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in modern life than most other
books on the subject.

If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. Although it is available in larger libraries, it's long
been out of print, and all it does is state the obvious: namely, that
the whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few
people have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes
and opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes
the
disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of life,
but
it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment the
thinking
of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only lead us to
greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the question
of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.

If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals
with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater honesty
than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:

"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --

To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy
has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that the
policies
guiding our nation should be decided by counting the votes of every
featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.

This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe
Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.

And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy
we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that we have a
greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up our own
minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we still have
some degree of individual freedom in the United States today because
more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far more
aristocratic
than democratic in the modern sense of the word were willing to go to
war against their legitimate government in order to secure that
freedom
for us, and people with a truly democratic temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.

Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing
in the myth of democracy is an important element in maintaining
control
over the thinking and behavior of the public. It is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely
to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read in the
New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious and
self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."

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-***@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe

To contact us via "snail mail," write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

The National Alliance: http://www.natvan.com
http://www.natall.com
Post by "The Right One"
Hence socialism. Therefore to refer to the third Reich as being some thing
from the far right is ludicrous and silly.
Socialism is state control such as we have here in Canada
Conservatism advocates freedom from state control
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.

The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.

Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.

The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.

Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.

The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.


The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
Post by "The Right One"
I am beginning to wonder if you use you name
What if I come to Cheeeraranna and buy you a cup of tea
Do I look for John Carrick?
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
John Carrick
2004-04-29 04:48:29 UTC
Permalink
It is clear that you are severely demented.

How is it that you are not in protective custody?
.
neptune3
2004-04-29 02:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Carrick
[1] And the rulers of China for the last 45+ years have called their
country "The People's Republic of China", and refer to the governing
crowd there as "The People's Party".
Do you accept whatever name a political alliance applies to itself?
National Socialists are socialists. But we don't call ourselves
liberal. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."

"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
Post by John Carrick
Do you not understand that parties may have ulterior motives in
selecting particular names for themselves?
National Socialists called themselves National Socialists mainly
because they were nationalists and socialists.
Post by John Carrick
Can you not see why every party would prefer to be known as a party of
the people...a party that represents society...to some degree a
*socialist* party? Hell, the new Canadian Conservative Party is
proudly a party of the people!
Its leaders are not honest enough to say, "We represent the selfish
business crowd, allied with religious crazies." They say that they
are a party that will govern on behalf of Canadian society. That
makes them proud "socialists".
[2] N.A.Z.I. translates loosely to "National Socialist Party".
This allows totally ignorant, completely right-wing partisan crazies
to conclude that Hitler was on the political left.
Such people don't understand the saying: "If it walks like a duck and
talks like a duck, it's a duck."
In naming their political party, the Nazis did *talk* like a populist
party of the left. They chose to include "socialist" in the party
name.
We are socialist.


Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw
abortion

Economic law examples-- have a minimum wage, have laws regarding
retirement and overtime


Conservative - For Moral Laws, Against Economic laws

Liberal - Against Moral Laws, For Economic Laws

Libertarian - Against Moral Laws, Against Economic Laws

Fascist - For Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
Post by John Carrick
Therefore, they did "talk like a duck".
The next question is, "How did they govern?"
The answer is that they abolished all union activity and hounded
National Socialists replaced the Unions with things that were not
controlled by leftist Communists. There is plenty about it in Mein
Kampf, but you prefer to post about National Socialism without
bothering to read it.
Post by John Carrick
genuine socialists and communists to their deaths by the thousands.
Further, they co-operated fully with German industrialists like Albert
Speer.
When the Second World War ended with the Germans defeated,
war crimes trials were held at Nurenburg.
Sir Hartley Shawcross was the chief British prosecutor in the
trials of the German leaders at
Nuremburg in 1946.

At a speech in Stourbridge England on March 16, 1984 he said this:

"Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of
Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg trials I,
together with my Russian Colleagues, condemned Nazi aggression and
terror. I believe now that Hitler and the Germany people did not want
war.
But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance
with our principle of the balance of power, and we were encouraged by
the Americans around Roosevelt.

We ignored Hitler's pleading not to enter into war. Now we are
forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the
co-operation of Germany: instead , since 1945, we have been facing the
immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to
see that the aims we accused Hitler of are being relentlessly pursued
now, only under a different label."
Post by John Carrick
The defendants were the
leaders of the NAZI party and their associates. (This included all
those who were still alive, or who, like Eichmann, had not escaped
capture.)
Alongside political leaders like Goring and Hess, and certain military
leaders, who was in the dock? Why a number of German industrialists!
And they received the harsh prison sentences that they had earned by
co-operatring with Hitler and his right-wing crowd.
Germany operated *state capitalism* from 1933 until 1945.
Nonsense. Only Communists think we should be against superior
people who create industry. Hitler put an end to greed and capitalism
not to superior industry.
Post by John Carrick
To suggest that the Third Reich was truly socialist is to make
yourself a figure of fun. It is simply stupid.
Are you not aware that, some months after signing a non-aggression
pact, Hitler launched an all-out war on the U.S.S.R.? That's just how
socialist a crowd the NAZIS were!
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want
their idea of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.

When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government
might do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would
call socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to
Communism.

The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
Post by John Carrick
Only someone who is prepared to re-write history, and who is so drunk
with right-wing notions that he cannot think straight, could consider
Adolph Hitler *any* sort of liberal or any sort of left-winger.
[3] Once again, it is easy to see why you don't post under your own
name.
You can take no pride in any of your political positions, and you
cannot afford to sign your posts honestly.
.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
Joe
2004-04-29 19:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by neptune3
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 06:25:10 GMT, "\"The Right One\""
Hey(,) (Mr.) Carrick(,) Adolf said he was a socialist(.)
[1] And the rulers of China for the last 45+ years have called their
country "The People's Republic of China", and refer to the governing
crowd there as "The People's Party".
Maybe Terry thought that the German Democratic Republic was really
democratic.
John Carrick
2004-04-29 23:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by John Carrick
Hey(,) (Mr.) Carrick(,) Adolf said he was a socialist(.)
[1] And the rulers of China for the last 45+ years have called their
country "The People's Republic of China", and refer to the governing
crowd there as "The People's Party".
Maybe Terry thought that the German Democratic Republic was really
democratic.
Oh, communist East Germany? <laugh>

In fact, Terry's major problem is that he has a completely rigid
mind-set. Right = Great! Left = Terrible!

Some months ago he could be found here posting vicious attacks on the
government in Ottawa each time the value of the Canadian dollar went
down.

Since then , the dollar has recovered, and has gained over 20% in
value in terms of the U.S dollar, and he has been ****SILENT*****.

If every *drop* in the dollar is worth a disparaging comment, why in
the name of Christ is a *rise* in the dollar greeted by total silence
from him?

The answer: he is so totally partisan that his brain has the
consitency of gruel.

It is a fact that he so hates Liberals that he wants to see their
government ***FAIL***!

He - and others here like him - would rather have Canada go into the
toilet, than have the country prosper with any credit going to the
LIberals.

[I have little use for the Liberal Party myself, *never* having voted
for it in almost 50 years with the franchise, but I want to see all of
our governments succeed - regardless of their political stripe - so
that all Canadians have a better chance for a good life.]

Terry does not understand this principle. He is all about partisan
hatred, regardless of the consequences.

And that means that every single message he posts here is rendered
***useless*** by the fact that he cannot be trusted to approach any
political matter with balance.

He is the equivalent of a political imbecile.

And there are many others here who are not far short of him in this
respect.
.
GOP-USA
2004-05-02 22:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Carrick
[I have little use for the Liberal Party myself, *never* having voted
for it in almost 50 years with the franchise, but I want to see all of
our governments succeed - regardless of their political stripe - so
that all Canadians have a better chance for a good life.]
Since Hitler was a liberal, then supporters of the Canadian liberal
party are part of the same general class to which Hitler belonged.
--
on eagles' wings
***@forum.net


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
neptune3
2004-05-03 01:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by GOP-USA
Since Hitler was a liberal, then supporters of the Canadian liberal
party are part of the same general class to which Hitler belonged.
Here are some parts of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels at the first
Nuremberg Rally in 1933:

"We told our opposition often enough that although we were using its
weapons and rules for our purposes, we had nothing intellectually or
politically in common with them. To the contrary, our goal was to use
these means to put and end to them and their methods, to finally
eliminate their theories and policies. Both in theory and practice,
National Socialism opposes liberalism.
Just as liberalism after the French Revolution had various effects on
every nation and people, depending on their nature and character, the
same is true today for the forces that oppose it. German democracy was
always a particular playground of European liberalism. Its innate
tendency towards excessive individualism was foreign to us, which lost
it any connection to real political life after the war. It had nothing
to do with the people. It represented not the totality of the nation,
but turned into a perpetual war between interests that gradually
destroyed the national and social foundations of our people's
existence."...
" It is a warning for the entire liberal world that Germany has
replaced democracy by an authoritarian system, that liberalism broke
under the blows of the national uprising, that parliamentarianism and
the party system are outdated concepts for us.
The past three years have proven that the strength of a new idea is
stronger than the resources of an outdated worldview, even when it
defends itself with the instruments of state. A new kind of authority
has been established in every area of public life in Germany.
The insane belief in equality that found its crassest expression in
political parties is no more. The principle of personality has
replaced the notion of popular idiocy. A united German nation was
born, despite all the pains of labor. It is not surprising that those
who benefited from parliamentarianism struck their tents when they saw
that National Socialism was firmly established. They decided to take
up their activity beyond our borders. That does not mean they have
given up on Germany. They believe their hour may not be near, but that
it will eventually come.
They do all they can to cause the Reich domestic and international
difficulties. These pacifists from head to toe do not even hesitate to
urge bloody war against Germany in the foreign papers that are not yet
wise enough to refuse them space.
One cannot make sense of this situation without understanding the
significance of the racial or Jewish Question.
The National Socialist government also cannot ignore it. Our laws
suffer hard and often unjustified criticism abroad, above all from
International Jewry itself. But one should not forget that dealing
with the Jewish Question through legal means was the best approach. Or
should the government have followed the principles of democracy and
majority rule and let the people themselves solve the problem?
History has never had a revolution less bloody, more disciplined and
more orderly than ours. In attempting to deal with the Jewish question
and to approach the matter legally for the first time in Europe's
history, we are only following the spirit of the age. Defending
against the Jewish danger is only part of our plan. When it becomes
the only issue when National Socialism is discussed, that is Jewry's
fault, not ours. It has attempted to mobilize the world against us, in
the secret hope of winning back the territory it has lost."...
"We certainly do not hold the Jews solely to blame for the German
spiritual and economic catastrophe. We all know the other causes that
led to the decline of our people. However, we have the courage to
recognize their role in the process, and to name them by name.
It was difficult for a time to persuade the people of this, for public
opinion was entirely in Jewish hands.
On a Berlin stage run by the Jews, a steel helmet bearing the words
"Away with the filth!" was swept into the dust heap. The Jew Gumbel
said the dead of the war had "fallen on the field of dishonor." The
Jew Lessing compared Hindenburg with the mass murderer Haarmann. The
Jew Toller said heroism was "the most stupid ideal." The Jew Arnold
Zweig spoke of the German people as a "horde that needed to be
unmasked," as the "animalistic power of the eternal Boche," and as a
"nation of newspaper readers, a herd of voters, businessmen,
murderers, marchers, operetta lovers and bureaucratic cadavers."
Is it surprising that the German Revolution also broke this unbearable
yoke? When one further considers the alienation of German intellectual
life by International Jewry, its corruption of German justice that
finally led to the fact that only one out of every five judges was
German, the takeover of the medical profession, their predominance
among university professors, in short, the fact that nearly all
intellectual professions were dominated by the Jews, one has to grant
that no people with any self esteem could tolerate that for long. It
was only an act of national renewal when the National Socialist
Revolution took action in this area."...
"Our country still faces a world boycott by International Jewry, even
if it is not as open as it was earlier, and we are still threatened by
a cleverly thought out and systematically executed world conspiracy.
The fight against young Germany is a fight by the second and third
Internationales against our authoritarian state. The countries that
tolerate or promote it, sometimes in the mistaken belief that they are
this reducing troublesome German competition on the world market, are
bringing upon themselves and their future a danger that we have
overcome.
They can do what they want; Germany has overcome the danger. It has
taken radical steps to drive out Bolshevism and its ideological
content along with its racially-linked concepts.
If our battle against anarchy results in the racial problem becoming a
world problem, that was not our intention, but it is fine with us. The
conspiracy being forged against Germany will not lead to our
destruction, but it will inevitably open the eyes of all the peoples
of the world."...
"The truth about Germany will get through to the other nations, also
in respect to the racial question. We have done what is necessary, and
therefore fulfilled our duty. We do not need to fear the world's
judgment.
The world is cordially invited to send its journalists and
representatives to Germany so that they can see for themselves the
courage and determination of the government and people to remove the
last remnants of the war and the November revolt, and to introduce a
balance of power that will guarantee Germany a secure existence,
honor, and its daily bread. No one who sees this nation at work can
have doubts about its future. The more foreigners visit us, the more
friends young Germany will win.
Our foreign situation today is identical to our domestic situation
when we began. Those who attended our meetings then were struck by the
crass contrast between what the enemy newspapers wrote about us and
what we actually are. Visitors to Germany today have the same
experience. Their experiences will be the beginning of respect. Any
fair, thinking and objective person, wherever he may come from, will
find a people and a government trying to overcome the difficulties of
the postwar period by its own strength, and who are attacking the
problems they face with hard, manly pride. We need to show the world
what we once showed the other parties: We never lose our nerve.
Modesty, clarity, firmness and decency are the virtues that our kind
of German thinking wants to see in the world. There is nothing that is
impossible. That which seems impossible can be made possible by the
power of the spirit.
Germany will not founder on the racial question; to the contrary, the
future of our people depends on solving it. As in so many other areas,
here too we shall be pathfinders for the world. Our revolution is of
enormous significance. We want it to find the key to world history in
the solution of the racial question."

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
"The Right One"
2004-05-03 06:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Carrick
Post by Joe
Post by John Carrick
Hey(,) (Mr.) Carrick(,) Adolf said he was a socialist(.)
[1] And the rulers of China for the last 45+ years have called their
country "The People's Republic of China", and refer to the governing
crowd there as "The People's Party".
Maybe Terry thought that the German Democratic Republic was really
democratic.
Oh, communist East Germany? <laugh>
In fact, Terry's major problem is that he has a completely rigid
mind-set. Right = Great! Left = Terrible!
And I can prove my point.
Post by John Carrick
Some months ago he could be found here posting vicious attacks on the
government in Ottawa each time the value of the Canadian dollar went
down.
Since then , the dollar has recovered, and has gained over 20% in
value in terms of the U.S dollar, and he has been ****SILENT*****.
If every *drop* in the dollar is worth a disparaging comment, why in
the name of Christ is a *rise* in the dollar greeted by total silence
from him?
The answer: he is so totally partisan that his brain has the
consitency of gruel.
It is a fact that he so hates Liberals that he wants to see their
government ***FAIL***!
He - and others here like him - would rather have Canada go into the
toilet, than have the country prosper with any credit going to the
LIberals.
[I have little use for the Liberal Party myself, *never* having voted
for it in almost 50 years with the franchise, but I want to see all of
our governments succeed - regardless of their political stripe - so
that all Canadians have a better chance for a good life.]
Terry does not understand this principle.
I never did understand how the principle of theft ever did benifet anyone
perhaps you can explain

He is all about partisan
Post by John Carrick
hatred, regardless of the consequences.
The lefties are about partison hatred
i.e. Saddam bin Laudin Hitler pol pot csastro kim et.al.
Post by John Carrick
And that means that every single message he posts here is rendered
***useless*** by the fact that he cannot be trusted to approach any
political matter with balance.
He is the equivalent of a political imbecile.
And there are many others here who are not far short of him in this
respect.
You call 72 cents a recovered dollar?

--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
The last ten years have been a decade
of diabolical decadence.
If You Support Paul Martin And The Liberals,
Then You Support Crime!
What example are you setting for your Children?
Post by John Carrick
.
neptune3
2004-05-04 23:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
chiefthracian
2004-05-02 20:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Hitler was A LIBERAL
Don't forget, he was ALSO queer (as you homophobic pinheads love to
believe).
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
neptune3
2004-05-03 01:45:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 May 2004 13:09:10 -0700, chiefthracian
Post by chiefthracian
Don't forget, he was ALSO queer (as you homophobic pinheads love to
believe).
"The text of this web page was originally published by the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum as a pamphlet titled "Homosexuals:
Victims of the Nazi Era". It is used here with permission.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,
100 Raoul Walenberg Place SW,
Washington D.C. 20024-2150.

As part of the Nazis' attempt to purify German society and propagate
an "Aryan master race," they condemned homosexuals as "socially
aberrant." Soon after taking office on January 30, 1933, Hitler banned
all homosexual and lesbian organizations. Brownshirted storm troopers
raided the institutions and gathering places of homosexuals. Greatly
weakened and driven underground, this subculture had flourished in the
relative freedom of the 1920s, in the pubs and cafes of Berlin,
Hamburg, Munich, Bremen, and other cities."
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
chiefthracian
2004-05-03 06:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by neptune3
"The text of this web page was originally published by the United
Victims of the Nazi Era". It is used here with permission.
That is an important modern-day memorium re. the TRUTH about Nazi
persecution against gays. But what YOU don't seem to realize, is that
much propaganda has been recently touted through the 1990's, about the
Nazi movment being a homosexually driven program. They cite those
members of the part who WERE homosexual, never bothering to
acknowledged that they composed a small percentage of all official
Nazis in Germany, at that time.

The main event that fomented this New-Age revisionism against queers,
is the publication of "The Pink Swastika"...whose basic premise is: We
hear unending propaganda about Nazi persecution of homosexuals. The
intent is to legitimize homosexuality by gaining sympathy with those
who suffered during the genocides of WWII."

Michael Savage--while talk show host on KSFO ("Savage Nation") touted
that book many times, quoting profusely the most derogatory slander
against homosexuals. Savage has been attacking queers with his
slug-headed bigotry here in Gay Mecca for so long, it's a wonder S.F.
General hasn't yet locked him up in the psych ward and thrown away the
key.

It is the trend to blame EVERYTHING on gays...because if society shows
acceptance of homosexuality, they are approving of one main way the
devil ruins God's people. Why 9/11? Those damned faggot-loving
liberals. Why invasion of Iraq? Why a shitty economy? Why did my wife
walk out on me? Why did my boss fire me? Why am I unemployed? Why did
I crash my car? Why am I homeless?

Blame it on those derned homosexuals. Why not? Everyone is already
kicking us around!

Scapegoating is Dubya's business...his only business. And the FOCUS is
on homosexuals. What he DOESN'T realize, is queers are SMARTER than
heteros...and we've already set traps for homophobes, on all levels of
gov't and society.
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
neptune3
2004-05-04 23:17:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 May 2004 23:39:55 -0700, chiefthracian
Post by chiefthracian
That is an important modern-day memorium re. the TRUTH about Nazi
persecution against gays. But what YOU don't seem to realize, is that
much propaganda has been recently touted through the 1990's, about the
Nazi movment being a homosexually driven program. They cite those
members of the part who WERE homosexual, never bothering to
acknowledged that they composed a small percentage of all official
Nazis in Germany, at that time.
Those few people died in the "night of the long knives".

Heinrich Himmler, Reichsfuhrer SS and head
of the Gestapo said in a speech in 1936 on the
subect of homosexuality and execution of Ernst Rohm (which he had
engineered): "Two years ago...when it became necessary, we
did not scruple to strike this plague with death, even within our own
ranks." Himmler closed with these words: "Just as we today have gone
back to
the ancient Germanic view on the question of marriage mixing different
races, so too in our judgement of homosexuality, a symptom of
degeneracy
which could destroy our race, we must return to the guiding Nordic
principle: extermination of degenerates"
Post by chiefthracian
The main event that fomented this New-Age revisionism against queers,
is the publication of "The Pink Swastika"...whose basic premise is: We
hear unending propaganda about Nazi persecution of homosexuals. The
intent is to legitimize homosexuality by gaining sympathy with those
who suffered during the genocides of WWII."
Michael Savage--while talk show host on KSFO ("Savage Nation") touted
that book many times, quoting profusely the most derogatory slander
against homosexuals. Savage has been attacking queers with his
slug-headed bigotry here in Gay Mecca for so long, it's a wonder S.F.
General hasn't yet locked him up in the psych ward and thrown away the
key.
Michael Savage is worse than the homosexual perverts. A lot worse.
Post by chiefthracian
It is the trend to blame EVERYTHING on gays...because if society shows
acceptance of homosexuality, they are approving of one main way the
devil ruins God's people. Why 9/11? Those damned faggot-loving
liberals. Why invasion of Iraq? Why a shitty economy? Why did my wife
walk out on me? Why did my boss fire me? Why am I unemployed? Why did
I crash my car? Why am I homeless?
Blame it on those derned homosexuals. Why not? Everyone is already
kicking us around!
Scapegoating is Dubya's business...his only business. And the FOCUS is
on homosexuals. What he DOESN'T realize, is queers are SMARTER than
heteros...and we've already set traps for homophobes, on all levels of
gov't and society.
That is one of the reasons homosexual perversion should not be
tolerated.

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
chiefthracian
2004-05-15 19:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by neptune3
That is one of the reasons homosexual perversion should not be
tolerated.
Same goes for heterosexual perversion. ANY perversion should be
condemned: such as rape, child abuse, and fag bashing. Far more sexual
perversions are performed by heteros, than by non-heteros...and I'm
talking here of PERCENT, not raw quantity.

You seem very confused...on one hand, rightfully condemning M.
Savage's airwave homophobia, and on the other, homosexuals (which you
seem to link inevitably with "perversion").
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
Richard Macdonald
2004-05-15 20:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by chiefthracian
Post by neptune3
That is one of the reasons homosexual perversion should not be
tolerated.
Same goes for heterosexual perversion. ANY perversion should be
condemned: such as rape, child abuse, and fag bashing. Far more sexual
perversions are performed by heteros, than by non-heteros...and I'm
talking here of PERCENT, not raw quantity.
You seem very confused...on one hand, rightfully condemning M.
Savage's airwave homophobia, and on the other, homosexuals (which you
seem to link inevitably with "perversion").
Actually NSDAP philosophy does not fit easy US right left distinctions.
Socially it was quite Conservative on most issues, but supported euthanasia.
Anti gay and very racial, but otherwise went into many state programs to
help the poor.
Economically ran towards state control over industries and many social
welfare programs
Very pro green on the environment and wanted to turn Germany back into a
garden after gaining Lebensraum.

Pretty much an amalgam of the worst traits of both sides of the current US
Right and Left.
neptune3
2004-05-16 21:55:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:32:59 GMT, "Richard Macdonald"
Post by Richard Macdonald
Actually NSDAP philosophy does not fit easy US right left distinctions.
Socially it was quite Conservative on most issues, but supported euthanasia.
Hitler stopped the euthenasia when people complained about it.

The capitalists are right in a way that the state doesn't have to
provide for those who can't provide for themselves. They may pretend
that private charity would provide for them all but actually many of
them would starve under capitalism. It is more mercifull to end a life
than to let it slowly starve to death. We should provide for such
people on the condition they be sterilized so the problem will not
continue for more generations. But if there is not enough food for
your own soldiers and other citizens tough decisions might have to be
made. If you go into some nursing homes you could find lives that most
people would consider not worth living. If the Germans just threw
these people out of the nursing homes and let nature take its course
it would be a lot less mercifull.

Hitler did stop the euthensia program when people complained. We
should make it clear that we agree with his decision to stop it.

The euthenasia was thought necessary because of the war. Germany
once got a lot of food from selling exports but a shortage was caused
by the international boycott the Jews put on Germany. The Jews said
that it was not enough to just not buy any German products. They said
people should not shop in any store that sold any German products at
all. The Germans knew that the soldiers needed the food and supplies
the most. They knew they had to win the war at all costs. This is what
happened after they lost the war:

Here are some quotes published in 1946 by Dr. Austin J. App. He
was an American English professor that was drafted into the army:

"these beloved fellow-liberators of ours are doing well indeed,
They know why one wants Unconditional Surrender and why Americans
cried for a "harsh" peace against the Germans, and they understand the
spirit of the Morgenthau Plan: In Vienna alone they raped 100,000
women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their
teens, and aged women! So reported the Most Rev. Bernard Griffin,
British Archbishop (now cardinal) after a more or less official tour
to study conditions in Europe (NC Report, Oct. 18, 1945)."

"'We Allies are no monsters,' said Churchill to the Germans in
January, 1945...Since that time the Allies who are no monsters have
raped more Christian women than have literally ever before been raped
in the history of the world. They have put Germany on a 1300-calory
starvation level; they have looted twelve million people of their
homes, goods, food and even clothes and driven them from their
homelands; they have kept or taken one-fourth of their farm land and
their ships and their factories and most of their farm implements and
then told them to live by farming; they have abused and starved to
death more German babies than their ever were Jews in Germany; and
finally they raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German,
Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women from eight to eighty. They
brought to their death five times as many Germans in one year of peace
as died during five years of war! Yes, Yes, of course, 'We Allies are
no monsters!'"

"Time magazine (Oct. 2, 1945 p.27), describing the mass expulsion
'of at least nine million
Germans...it is a tale of horror, old men starving on the roads, yound
women raped in boxcars.'
And the holy crusaders who are doing this raping have the
shamelessness of trying whole classes of Germans as war criminals!"

" Sylvester C. Michelfelder, a Lutheran Pastor, just returned
from Germany describes in The Christian Century how 'Bands of
irresponsible bandits in Russian or American uniforms pillage and rob
trains. Women and girls are violoated in the sight of everyone. They
are stripped of their clothes.' Yes, the holy reeducators of Germany
are having a wonderful time!"

" In Stuttgart, troops under Eisenhower's command, with whom his
communications were not severed, raped more women in one week in one
city than troops under Hitler's command seem to have raped in four
years in all of France. For such literally seem to be the facts,
however discomforting to decent Americans."

" After four years of German occupation, Frederick C. Crawford,
President of Thompson Products, on January 4, 1945, in a 'Report from
the War Front,' where with others the War Department had taken him on
an inspection tour, said, 'the Germans tried to be careful in their
dealings with the people...We were told that if a citizen attended
strictly to business and took no political or underground action
against the occupying army, he was treated with correctness' (p.5) In
short, wherever Americans have been able to investigate for
themselves, they have found that however ruthless the Germans were
with resisters and saboteurs, they were uncommonly Christian and
decent towards the women of the conquered."

"'Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras
and Lugers' (N.Y. World Telegram, January 21, 1945)"

"Some of our own senators have declared this starvation
planned and deliberate. In fact, so determined are our policy makers
to starve the conquered that they have callously prohibited even
private charity. 'For the first time in the history of Christian
nations', writes Bishop Aloisius Muench of Fargo, North Dakota,
'powerful governments are making the exercise of Christian charity
impossible through official regulations' (One World in Charity, Lent,
1946, p.1)"

"Nevertheless, in spite of this deliberately planned or
encouraged, and certainly tolerated debauchery of German and Austrian
women by occupation troops under American command, the American and
the British occupation cannot be compared to the shocking beastliness
of the Russian occupation...we who screamed when the Germans executed
the British-sent murderers of a governor and their concealers at
Lidice, and don't raise a wimper when the Russians violate a million
women and hundreds of nuns!"
Post by Richard Macdonald
Anti gay and very racial, but otherwise went into many state programs to
help the poor.
Economically ran towards state control over industries and many social
welfare programs
They didn't run the industries but they made sure no greed was going
on.
Post by Richard Macdonald
Very pro green on the environment and wanted to turn Germany back into a
garden after gaining Lebensraum.
Pretty much an amalgam of the worst traits of both sides of the current US
Right and Left.
The best traits.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
Peter White
2004-05-16 22:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by neptune3
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:32:59 GMT, "Richard Macdonald"
Post by Richard Macdonald
Actually NSDAP philosophy does not fit easy US right left distinctions.
Socially it was quite Conservative on most issues, but supported euthanasia.
Hitler stopped the euthenasia when people complained about it.
Did they complain after the fact? In writing I suppose, is that an
example of 'will' power?
Post by neptune3
The capitalists are right in a way that the state doesn't have to
provide for those who can't provide for themselves. They may pretend
that private charity would provide for them all but actually many of
them would starve under capitalism. It is more mercifull to end a life
than to let it slowly starve to death. We should provide for such
people on the condition they be sterilized so the problem will not
continue for more generations. But if there is not enough food for
your own soldiers and other citizens tough decisions might have to be
made. If you go into some nursing homes you could find lives that most
people would consider not worth living. If the Germans just threw
these people out of the nursing homes and let nature take its course
it would be a lot less mercifull.
Hitler did stop the euthensia program when people complained. We
should make it clear that we agree with his decision to stop it.
The euthenasia was thought necessary because of the war. Germany
once got a lot of food from selling exports but a shortage was caused
by the international boycott the Jews put on Germany. The Jews said
that it was not enough to just not buy any German products. They said
people should not shop in any store that sold any German products at
all. The Germans knew that the soldiers needed the food and supplies
the most. They knew they had to win the war at all costs. This is what
Here are some quotes published in 1946 by Dr. Austin J. App. He
"these beloved fellow-liberators of ours are doing well indeed,
They know why one wants Unconditional Surrender and why Americans
cried for a "harsh" peace against the Germans, and they understand the
spirit of the Morgenthau Plan: In Vienna alone they raped 100,000
women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their
teens, and aged women! So reported the Most Rev. Bernard Griffin,
British Archbishop (now cardinal) after a more or less official tour
to study conditions in Europe (NC Report, Oct. 18, 1945)."
"'We Allies are no monsters,' said Churchill to the Germans in
January, 1945...Since that time the Allies who are no monsters have
raped more Christian women than have literally ever before been raped
in the history of the world. They have put Germany on a 1300-calory
starvation level; they have looted twelve million people of their
homes, goods, food and even clothes and driven them from their
homelands; they have kept or taken one-fourth of their farm land and
their ships and their factories and most of their farm implements and
then told them to live by farming; they have abused and starved to
death more German babies than their ever were Jews in Germany; and
finally they raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German,
Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women from eight to eighty. They
brought to their death five times as many Germans in one year of peace
as died during five years of war! Yes, Yes, of course, 'We Allies are
no monsters!'"
"Time magazine (Oct. 2, 1945 p.27), describing the mass expulsion
'of at least nine million
Germans...it is a tale of horror, old men starving on the roads, yound
women raped in boxcars.'
Is that why they were called 'box'cars?
Post by neptune3
And the holy crusaders who are doing this raping have the
shamelessness of trying whole classes of Germans as war criminals!"
" Sylvester C. Michelfelder, a Lutheran Pastor, just returned
from Germany describes in The Christian Century how 'Bands of
irresponsible bandits in Russian or American uniforms pillage and rob
trains. Women and girls are violoated in the sight of everyone. They
are stripped of their clothes.' Yes, the holy reeducators of Germany
are having a wonderful time!"
" In Stuttgart, troops under Eisenhower's command, with whom his
communications were not severed, raped more women in one week in one
city than troops under Hitler's command seem to have raped in four
years in all of France. For such literally seem to be the facts,
however discomforting to decent Americans."
" After four years of German occupation, Frederick C. Crawford,
President of Thompson Products, on January 4, 1945, in a 'Report from
the War Front,' where with others the War Department had taken him on
an inspection tour, said, 'the Germans tried to be careful in their
dealings with the people...We were told that if a citizen attended
strictly to business and took no political or underground action
against the occupying army, he was treated with correctness' (p.5) In
short, wherever Americans have been able to investigate for
themselves, they have found that however ruthless the Germans were
with resisters and saboteurs, they were uncommonly Christian and
decent towards the women of the conquered."
"'Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras
and Lugers' (N.Y. World Telegram, January 21, 1945)"
"Some of our own senators have declared this starvation
planned and deliberate. In fact, so determined are our policy makers
to starve the conquered that they have callously prohibited even
private charity. 'For the first time in the history of Christian
nations', writes Bishop Aloisius Muench of Fargo, North Dakota,
'powerful governments are making the exercise of Christian charity
impossible through official regulations' (One World in Charity, Lent,
1946, p.1)"
"Nevertheless, in spite of this deliberately planned or
encouraged, and certainly tolerated debauchery of German and Austrian
women by occupation troops under American command, the American and
the British occupation cannot be compared to the shocking beastliness
of the Russian occupation...we who screamed when the Germans executed
the British-sent murderers of a governor and their concealers at
Lidice, and don't raise a wimper when the Russians violate a million
women and hundreds of nuns!"
Post by Richard Macdonald
Anti gay and very racial, but otherwise went into many state programs to
help the poor.
Economically ran towards state control over industries and many social
welfare programs
They didn't run the industries but they made sure no greed was going
on.
'no greed was going on' my how elequent, your prose is so so ...
stupid, what else?
Post by neptune3
Post by Richard Macdonald
Very pro green on the environment and wanted to turn Germany back into a
garden after gaining Lebensraum.
Pretty much an amalgam of the worst traits of both sides of the current US
Right and Left.
The best traits.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
neptune3
2004-05-19 01:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter White
Did they complain after the fact? In writing I suppose, is that an
example of 'will' power?
Many Christians complained and Hitler promptly stopped it. Compare
that to Bush. Huge demonstrations against war in Iraq and it didn't
change a thing. That's democracy for you.
Post by Peter White
Is that why they were called 'box'cars?
No
Post by Peter White
'no greed was going on' my how elequent, your prose is so so ...
stupid, what else?
Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:

"Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
"Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so that he
better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment no longer
haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again, and those
who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
plant in which they together work...
Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
individual good, who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
"right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
service to the people. The National Socialist Labor Service will see
to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
for the good of the nation."

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
chiefthracian
2004-05-18 07:39:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:32:59 GMT, "Richard Macdonald"
Post by Richard Macdonald
Actually NSDAP philosophy does not fit easy US right left distinctions.
EXCUSE my ignorance. What's NSDAP?
Post by Richard Macdonald
Pretty much an amalgam of the worst traits of both sides of the current US
Right and Left.
Thanks for clarifying that things are more confusing than
they seem. :)))
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
Richard Macdonald
2004-05-18 08:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by neptune3
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:32:59 GMT, "Richard Macdonald"
Post by Richard Macdonald
Actually NSDAP philosophy does not fit easy US right left distinctions.
EXCUSE my ignorance. What's NSDAP?
NazionalSozialisteDeutcheArbiterPartie (pardon spelling, i'm rusty)
or translated the National Sosalist German Workers Party, i.e. Nazi Party

--
Richard A Macdonald, CPA/EA
Dedicated student of Fr Luca Paccioli, Master Juggler.
Gib mir schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!
chiefthracian
2004-05-19 03:48:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 May 2004 08:29:42 GMT, "Richard Macdonald"
Post by Richard Macdonald
NazionalSozialisteDeutcheArbiterPartie (pardon spelling, i'm rusty)
or translated the National Sosalist German Workers Party, i.e. Nazi Party
I presumed it was an acronym for the Nazi Party, but wasn't
sure. Thanks, and

"Heil Dubya!"

-------------Only in AmeriKKKa:

Collections of 9/11 photos and videos, interspersed with ads
for (hetero) porn...including (hetero) pehophilia.

http://www.twin-towers.net/moab_bomb.htm

No wonder I'm a red-blooded anti-AmeriKKKan. Proud to be
queer and all that.
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
neptune3
2004-05-19 01:41:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 May 2004 00:39:27 -0700, chiefthracian
Post by neptune3
On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:32:59 GMT, "Richard Macdonald"
Post by Richard Macdonald
Actually NSDAP philosophy does not fit easy US right left distinctions.
EXCUSE my ignorance. What's NSDAP?
National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi)
Post by neptune3
Thanks for clarifying that things are more confusing than
they seem. :)))
I don't know why you folks are so confused. We are not Republicans.
We are not Democrats. We are National Socialists. What makes you think
there can only be two sets of viewpoints?

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
SHARX
2004-05-15 23:57:53 UTC
Permalink
chiefthracian wrote:
|| On Tue, 04 May 2004 18:17:36 -0500, neptune3 <***@hotmail.com>
|| wrote:
||
||| That is one of the reasons homosexual perversion should not be
||| tolerated.
||
|| Same goes for heterosexual perversion. ANY perversion should be
|| condemned: such as rape, child abuse, and fag bashing. Far more
|| sexual perversions are performed by heteros, than by
|| non-heteros...and I'm talking here of PERCENT, not raw quantity.
||
|| You seem very confused...on one hand, rightfully condemning M.
|| Savage's airwave homophobia, and on the other, homosexuals (which you
|| seem to link inevitably with "perversion").

In NORTH AMERICA, AIDS is primarily spread by homosexuals. Period. End of
discussion.



||
||
|| --
|| "Many are called, but few are chosen.
|| Step right up for your lederhosen!"
|| - Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
|| http://www.gay-bible.org
chiefthracian
2004-05-18 07:39:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:57:53 GMT, "SHARX"
Post by SHARX
In NORTH AMERICA, AIDS is primarily spread by homosexuals.
Nope. It's primarily spread by homophobic DOCTORS who
injected it into gay volunteers of the Hepatitis B vaccine.
It is only homophobes who jump all over the "gays spread
AIDS" bandwagon. Can you say "Neo-Nazis"?

AIDS Heretics
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/aids.html

AIDS Vaccine Scam Exposed
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=34

The AIDS War
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/books/jlbwar.htm

The HIV=AIDS Controversy
http://www.borderlands.com/hivaids.htm

Health Education AIDS Liaison
http://www.thorup.com/HEAL/healindex2.html

Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled?
http://www.duesberg.com/

Linking AIDS to Hepatitis Experiments
http://www.bhc.edu/eastcampus/leeb/aids/aidtesk.htm

State Origin: laboratory origin of AIDS
http://www.blackherbals.com/State_Origin.htm

The Truth on AIDS
http://www.oikos.org/aids/default.htm

Was there an AIDS contract?
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Urgent_Action/AIDS_Contract.html
Post by SHARX
Period. End of discussion.
YOU don't want to hear the truth, 'cause it would SHATTER
your hegemony as tyrant over those who are different from
you. So far as YOU'RE concerned, just say "end of
discussion" and bury your hetero head in the sand.
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
Sassy Baskets
2004-05-18 23:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by SHARX
||
||| That is one of the reasons homosexual perversion should not be
||| tolerated.
||
|| Same goes for heterosexual perversion. ANY perversion should be
|| condemned: such as rape, child abuse, and fag bashing. Far more
|| sexual perversions are performed by heteros, than by
|| non-heteros...and I'm talking here of PERCENT, not raw quantity.
||
|| You seem very confused...on one hand, rightfully condemning M.
|| Savage's airwave homophobia, and on the other, homosexuals (which you
|| seem to link inevitably with "perversion").
In NORTH AMERICA, AIDS is primarily spread by homosexuals. Period. End of
discussion.
Hmm.. Meningococcal disease is primarily spread by children; ebola is
primarily spread by travellers; and polio is primarily spread by
sub-Saharan Africans. This is a fun game, but what's the point?
chiefthracian
2004-05-19 03:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sassy Baskets
Hmm.. Meningococcal disease is primarily spread by children; ebola is
primarily spread by travellers; and polio is primarily spread by
sub-Saharan Africans. This is a fun game, but what's the point?
The point is: none of the other groups are stigmatized as
being disease spreaders. So I only think it's decent for at
least ONE person in this thread, to challenge homophobes,
instead of tacitly approving of such prejudice by letting
the comment stand unchallenged. (Hint, hint. Or in your
case: shame, shame.)
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
neptune3
2004-05-16 21:51:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:22:21 -0700, chiefthracian
Post by chiefthracian
Same goes for heterosexual perversion. ANY perversion should be
condemned: such as rape, child abuse, and fag bashing. Far more sexual
perversions are performed by heteros, than by non-heteros...and I'm
talking here of PERCENT, not raw quantity.
You seem very confused...on one hand, rightfully condemning M.
Savage's airwave homophobia, and on the other, homosexuals (which you
seem to link inevitably with "perversion").
What homosexual perverts do is perverted. M Savage should be
condemned because he is against the only countries that put a stop to
homosexual perversion.

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
chiefthracian
2004-05-18 07:39:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 May 2004 16:51:54 -0500, neptune3
Post by neptune3
What homosexual perverts do is perverted.
Sex is perverted? Boy, you are one twisted breeder. Or
should I just say "breeder", as the rest is obvious.
Post by neptune3
M Savage should be
condemned because he is against the only countries that put a stop to
homosexual perversion.
You mean your homeland of HeteroCuckooville?
--
"Many are called, but few are chosen.
Step right up for your lederhosen!"
- Big Gay Brother (Zeke Krahlin)
http://www.gay-bible.org
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...