Discussion:
Powerful quotes in favor of Freedom
(too old to reply)
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
2005-02-07 14:56:15 UTC
Permalink
---
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman/philosophy_general/define_freedom.htm
---

"Freedom is the distance between church and state."
-John Boston

- - -

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse
of freedom..."
-Susan B. Anthony

- - -

"Freedom of religion also implies the right not to have or
profess a religion. This is sometimes overlooked. It is a
sad commentary on religion that religionists, probably
quite well-meaning at times, have throughout history tried
to force fellow human beings into a required religious
mold. Apart from the very wrong theological assumptions
involved, this is a flagrant violation of the dignity of the
human person. Coerced religion is demeaning and of little
value."
-Bert B. Beach, Bright Candle of Courage, 1989, pp. 14-15,
from 'The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom'

- - -

"Those who take refuge behind theological barbed wire
fences, quite often wish they could have more freedom
of thought, but fear the change to the great ocean of
scientific truth as they would a cold bath plunge."
-Luther Burbank, "Why I Am an Infidel," 1926

- - -

"Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought."
-Graham Greene, 1981

- - -

"Whether the Bible is true or false, is of no consequence
in comparison with the mental freedom of the race."
-Robert G. Ingersoll, 'The Gods', 1872

- - -

"... my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness,
and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who
gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain -for the
freedom of labor and thought -to those who fell on the
fierce fields of war, to those who died in dungeons
bound with chains -to those who proudly mounted
scaffold's stairs -to those whose bones were crushed ...

... whose flesh was scarred and torn -to those by fire
consumed -to all the wise, the good, the brave of every
land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to
the sons of men. And I vowed to grasp the torch that
they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer
darkness still."
-Robert G. Ingersoll, 'Why Am I An Agnostic?', 1896

- - -

"Mental slavery is mental death and every man who has
given up his intellectual freedom is the living coffin of
his dead soul."
-Robert G. Ingersoll, 'Individuality', 1873

- - -

"We did not get our freedom from the church. The great
truth, that all men are by nature free, was never told on
Sinai's barren crags, nor by the lonely shores of Galilee."
-Robert G. Ingersoll, 'The Christian Religion' Part III,
The Ingersoll - Black Debate, 1881

- - -

"When I became convinced that the Universe is natural
-- that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered
into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood,
the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom."
Robert G. Ingersoll, 'Why I Am An Agnostic', 1896

- - -

"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry.
There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist
is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt
any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any
errors."
-J. Robert Oppenheimer, Life, 10 October 1949

- - -

"As long as men are free to ask what they must, free
to say what they think, free to think what they will,
freedom can never be lost, and science can never
regress."
-J. Robert Oppenheimer, Life, 10 October 1949

- - -

€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €

~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://fire.prohosting.com/prohuman
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
Topaz
2005-02-08 01:40:40 UTC
Permalink
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.

In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.

The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.

Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
And feminism is Jewish:

Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.

"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio

# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)

Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria,
Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl Friedan,
the
mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist, best-selling
author,
professor, a founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the
National
Women's Political Caucus, and the First Women's Bank, researcher,
journalist,
Democrat, clinical psychologist, and grandmother, Betty Friedan was
the most
influential feminist of the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and
others as
an "initiator of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings
and
lectures, including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE
and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live
and work...
When the war against fascism ended two decades later, four million
women lost
their jobs to returning GIs. Women were again told that their place
was in the
home. The freedom to work to build up and defend their nation was
over. Men
would earn the family's bread. What the boys needed was a warm place
to come
home to every night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some
of the
values toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen,
church) as the
Nazis they thought they had defeated...






www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-08 03:23:31 UTC
Permalink
The leftists who rule America....
"Leftists"? Which America are you talking about?
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-09 00:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
The leftists who rule America....
"Leftists"? Which America are you talking about?
The USA.

NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip
Lee Duigon

If a private citizen tells his neighbor's children that they ought to
try
gay sex, he might wind up in a correctional facility. If he talks that
way
to your 13-year-old son, you'll want him put away--pronto.

But when this very same behavior, toward the same children, is
displayed by
adults who belong to America's biggest teachers' union, most parents
simply
let them do it. In fact, they pay them to.

The NEA is committed to the cause of militant homosexuality. It's the
richest, most politically powerful union in America, and it has daily
access
to most of America's children. And it wants to recruit them for the
homosexual lifestyle.

Lean this equation, America:

Public schools=The homosexual agenda

If you don't believe it, visit nea-glc.org/, the website of the
National
Education Association's Gay and Lesbian Coalition. There, among their
"great
achievements" in shaping NEA policy, the homosexual militants cite the
NEA's
promotion of "the lesbian-gay-bisexual curriculum" and "family life
education... regarding the diversity of sexual orientation."

The NEA has also campaigned for the proclamation of
"Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual History Month" (try putting that on
a
T-shirt), homosexual studies at Catholic colleges--and, of course,
homosexual "marriage."

The people of Massachusetts know the teachers' union's commitment to
"gay
marriage." Aline Isaacson of GLSEN (Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education
Network),
the media's favorite poster gal for "gay marriage", is
also--surprise!--a
paid consultant to the Massachusetts teachers' union. Paid in taxpayer
dollars, to boot. (You may remember Massachusetts GLSEN from a few
years ago
as the organizers of graphic, intensely perverted sex "workshops" for
public
school children--a scandal that came to be known as "fist-gate.")

Ms. Isaacson, according to the grass-roots Article 8 Alliance, these
days
makes it a full-time job lobbying state legislators to keep them from
jumping ship on "gay marriage" and voting for the Bill of Address
which
would remove the outlaw Supreme Judicial Court judges who imposed this
oxymoron on the people of Massachusetts. Supported by taxpayers'
money, she
makes daily, face-to-face visits to individual lawmakers. Nice work if
you
can get it.

Too bad you couldn't make it to the gym teachers' state convention in
New
Jersey, in February. It wasn't about volleyball. For public school gym
teachers, Job One--according to the convention's floor displays,
handouts,
posters, and workshop topics (all of which I saw personally)--is
getting the
kids comfy with homosexuality. To this end, they handed out a
"resource
guide"--handsomely produced, slick, paid for largely by Fleet Bank
Inc.--intended for distribution in all the public schools. (For more
information, see my article, "Now It's the Gym Teachers," in the
February
archive of the Chalcedon website, chalcedon.edu.)

You would have seen even more of the same at "Twenty Years of Great
Sex
(Ed)" last year, a national conference of "sex educators" hosted by
Rutgers,
New Jersey's taxpayer-funded state university. Again, there was no
effort to
hide the educators' whole-hearted penchant for homosexuality...


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".


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-09 03:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by David V.
The leftists who rule America....
"Leftists"? Which America are you talking about?
The USA.
Then you must have the wrong USA. The one I live in is ruled by
the Religious Reich.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-09 23:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Then you must have the wrong USA. The one I live in is ruled by
the Religious Reich.
Then why isn't abortion and homosexual perversion outlawed?

from The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/197/metro/Jews_see_US_as_secular_survey_sa
ys+.shtml
July 15th 2000
By Michael Paulsen, Globe Staff, 7/15/2000

Despite what appears to be a growing inclination among many religious
groups, politicians, and judges to chip away at the wall that
separates
church and state, American Jews remain staunchly opposed to any mixing
of
religion and public life.

A new survey of the Jewish community finds that, although some factors
that
have historically contributed to Jewish support of strict separation
between
church and state have waned, Jews are far more reluctant than non-Jews
to
accept references to religion in the public schools or other public
arenas.

''Jews are more secure when society is more overtly secular,'' said
Alan
Mittleman, director of the ''Jews and the Public Square'' project, one
of
seven surveys funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts examining the
contemporary
role of religious groups in the United States.

The study also found that on a variety of issues involving sexual
morality
that have roiled other religious groups, Jews are much more liberal
than
other Americans. ''Jews take a less critical view of homosexuality,
abortion, birth control and pornography than do Gentiles,'' the study
found.
''In each case, Jewish leaders are even more tolerant than the Jewish
public.''

For example, 48 percent of non-Jews say homosexuality is wrong,
compared to
23 percent of Jews and 7 percent of Jewish leaders. And while 56
percent of
non-Jews support abortion rights, 88 percent of Jews and 96 percent of
Jewish leaders do.

The findings on church-state separation could have important bearing
on the
Jewish role in the debate over school vouchers. As the number of
children in
Jewish day schools has skyrocketed, some Jewish policy makers have
suggested
that the community supports the use of vouchers, but the survey
suggests
that Jewish reluctance to support such a step runs deep.

Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious
symbols on public property.

Jewish support for church-state separation traces back to the 1940s,
and is
driven by concerns that a greater presence of religion in the public
sphere
means a greater presence of Christianity.

''Absent the protections afforded by church-state separation, many
Jews
feared that Christian church leaders, in the context of a large
Christian
majority in the American population, would promote an explicitly
Christian
character to the American state and its institutions,'' the study
declared.
''Jews, in particular, were concerned that the schools not be used to
indoctrinate their children in the culture and tenets of
Christianity.''

Jewish attitudes were intensified by the community's fear of
anti-Semitism
associated with some Christian groups, and by the community's
liberalism and
secularity, the study said. In recent years, the study said, Jews have
become more accepted in the United States, Jews have become less
liberal,
and a significant fraction of the community has become less secular,
but the
attitudes have remained.

Only 38 percent of Jews support allowing the Ten Commandments to be
displayed in public schools, compared to 65 percent of non-Jews; 39
percent
of Jews would allow the teaching of creationism, compared with 63
percent of
non-Jews; and 22 percent of Jews would support vouchers that could be
used
at religious schools, compared with 43 percent of non-Jews.

The data come from a survey of a 1,002 Jews around the United States.
Because of the relatively small number of Jews in the United States,
the
pollsters used a somewhat unorthodox method for assembling a sample -
they
queried a sample of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed
by mail
on various matters.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is also funding studies of African-American,
Catholic, evangelical, Hispanic, mainline Protestant, and Muslim
religious
populations in the United States. Each study will include a poll,
scholarly
papers, and conferences over a three-year period.



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-10 00:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Then why isn't abortion and homosexual perversion outlawed? <
Since homosexual orientation appears to be God's gift to certain persons,
whether they want it or not, how do you propose to enforce such a law?
Topaz
2005-02-10 01:10:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:13:29 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
Post by Marvin Edwards
Since homosexual orientation appears to be God's gift to certain persons,
whether they want it or not, how do you propose to enforce such a law?
No one said we should arrest them for being sick but only when they
put the sickness into practice.

"We're never going to find any one gene that determines whether
someone is
gay or not," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at
the
University of Illinois at Chicago. "It's going to be a combination of
various genes acting together as well as possibly interacting with
environmental influences."

Previous studies in male twins have suggested that perhaps between
40-60
percent of the variability in sexual orientation is somehow due to
genes.
But here's the key:

The rest is thought to be due to environment (i.e., LEARNED behavior)
and
possibly other biologic (i.e., like how you were raised as a child)
but
nongenetic causes."

This and other information concerning what now appears to be learned
behavior lying at the root of homosexual behavior is found in an
interesting
FOXNews article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145754,00.html


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-10 02:11:39 UTC
Permalink
No one said we should arrest them for being sick but only when they put
the sickness into practice. <
Assuming the sexual activity takes place in private, between adults, why
would it be anyone's business than their own?
"We're never going to find any one gene that determines whether someone is
gay or not," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. "It's going to be a combination of
various genes acting together as well as possibly interacting with
environmental influences." Previous studies in male twins have suggested
that perhaps between 40-60 percent of the variability in sexual
orientation is somehow due to genes. But here's the key: The rest is
thought to be due to environment (i.e., LEARNED behavior) and possibly
other biologic (i.e., like how you were raised as a child) but nongenetic
causes." ... <
I agree that there are many factors, and different people who consider
themselves homosexual may have arrived there in different ways. But some
appear to have gotten there on their own, at an early age, without
consciously choosing it, and were surprised to find themselves different
than their peers, through no choice of their own.

Generally, I think it reasonable to consider homosexual orientation as a
handicap, which in most cases cannot be cured. A handicap is something that
impairs someone, such that they find it difficult to do something that
people are normally able to do. In the case of homosexual orientation, it
impairs the ability to mate normally, with someone of the opposite sex. I
don't think homosexuals should be treated any differently than someone with
any other handicap. You look to what the person can do, rather than their
difficulty. You don't make fun of their handicap, but instead try to
understand why they can't do some things as well as others.
Topaz
2005-02-11 00:03:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:11:39 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
Post by Marvin Edwards
Assuming the sexual activity takes place in private, between adults, why
would it be anyone's business than their own?
"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"

Himmler


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 01:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:11:39 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
Post by Marvin Edwards
Assuming the sexual activity takes place in private, between
adults, why would it be anyone's business than their own?
"Just as we today have gone back to the ancient Germanic
view...
I don't give a shit what the "ancient germanic view" was on
anything.
Post by Topaz
we must return to the guiding Nordic principle: extermination
of degenerates"
You would be the first degenerate to go.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-11 01:48:26 UTC
Permalink
http://www.blessedcause.org/Militant%20Intent.htm
GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS

From Concerned Women From America
by Beverly LaHaye

Dear Concerned American,
What I am about to tell you in this letter is so outrageous you may
find it
hard to believe. I was astounded myself. I could not believe that our
nation had fallen so far. But the reports here are true.
I have warned many times that our children are under attack. Now I'm
writing to sound the alarm that the situation is even worse than I
thought.
I'll tell you more details in a moment, but here's just a sample of
what
I've discovered:
Cross-dressing promoted to grade-school children
Graphic instruction in "gay" sex taught to teenage boys and girls
Armed guards posted to keep parents out of high school assemblies led
by
radical homosexual activists
A book - published by a taxpayer-funded university - that endorses sex
between children and adults!

I've warned about this for many years. Now the evidence is beyond
dispute:
there is an evil scheme aimed at destroying our children.
The attack comes on many fronts. It aims to expose children to sex at
earlier and earlier ages... to rob them of their innocence and open
them up
to immoral and unhealthy practices... to set them up to accept
messages of
"safe sex" and homosexuality... to usher them into becoming advocates
for -
and ultimately participants in - sexual promiscuity, sodomy,
bisexuality,
and transgenderism.
These reports confirm my worst fears about this scheme. The time is
short!
Radical homosexual activists have long said, "Whoever controls the
schools,
controls the future." If they can convince the next generation that
homosexuality is "just another lifestyle," there will be no stopping
them.
Even more chilling: If they can lure a whole generation of young
people to
explore "alternative" sexual behavior... to discover their "gay
side"...
they will have a whole new generation of young, willing sex partners.
Their first step is to promote gender confusion. Nothing I have ever
seen
promises to confuse kids more than a lesson guide obtained and given
to me
by one of the researchers here at CWA.
GRADE SCHOOL LESSON PROMOTES CROSS-DRESSING
The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, also known as
"GLSEN, is
pushing a grade-school curriculum book that promotes cross-dressing.
This
book was created by a homosexual parents group at the Buena Vista
Elementary
School in San Francisco. It includes a lesson based on a children's
book
titled "Jesse's Dream Skirt."
As incredible as it sounds, this is real!
The story is about a young boy named Jesse who likes trying on his
mother's
dresses, and dreams of a skirt "that whirled, twirled, flowed and
glowed,
and felt soft inside."
Jesse's mom helps him make a skirt, and he wears it to daycare, where
his
classmates make fun of him. The daycare teacher, Bruce, gathers the
children together and says, "Jesse loves his skirt. Why are some of
you
making fun of him?" A girl says, "Well, I wear pants. Why can't
Jesse wear
a skirt?"
A boy, Mike, says that one day his mother let him dress upin her old
dresses
and hats. "It was a lot of fun," he said, until his father came in
and
yelled at him, saying, "Take off that dress, I don't want my son to be
a
sissy!" Mike told his daycare classmates, "I don't know, - I still
don't
see what was wrong with it."
The children and their teacher discuss the issue and most of hte
children
end up liking Jesse's skirt. Some even start making dresses
themselves.
The book ends with Jesse twirling around in his "dream skirt," with
his
boy-style underwear showing. The companion lesson plan says the "key
message" of "Jesse's Dream Skirt" is: "Respect means keeping our minds
open.
Having open minds means giving people freedom to be who they want to
be."
I don't know what's worse: encouraging boys to wear dresses, or the
negative
portrayal of Mike's father. Children who study "Jesse's Dream Skirt"
are
getting the message that their parents' view of morality cannot be
trusted.
Lest you think this sort of insanity is restricted to California, take
a
loot at this next report, straight from the Midwest.
Armed Security Guard Ejects Mother of Student from School Assembly on
Homosexuality
This really made me angry when I heard about it!
The incident took place in St. Louis, Missouri last year just after
school
had started for fall. Debra Loveless, whose daughter attends Metro
High
School, heard that GLESEN was conducting a school-sponsored assembly.
Loveless had told school officials that she considered the event
inappropriate. When she tried to view it for herself, she was
escorted out
of the assembly by an armed security guard. (Just for wanting to view
it!)
Can you believe the arrogance of those school administrators!
We may never know all of what those dear young people were exposed to
during
that assembly. But if GLSEN's past performance is any indication, the
material was corrupting an destructive.
GLESEN has produced some of the most foul "educational" material in
the
dishonorable history of sex education. Two years ago, CWA uncovered a
pornographic teaching session conducted in Massachusetts by GLSEN.
During that workshop, homosexual instructors indoctrinated children as
young
as 14 years old. The children heard detailed descriptions of
perverted sex
acts, including the dangerous practice known in homosexual slang as
"fisting." After it was exposed, that session sparked outrage across
the
nation. It was such a scandal that it became known as "Fistgate."
GLSEN
leaders responded by becoming much more secretive. Apparently this
has led
them to keep parents out of their workshops like the one in St. Louis.
So it has come to this. Our tax dollars foot the bill for homosexual
propaganda to poison our children's minds and defile their hearts.
And when
parents want to find out what's going on, they get thrown out of
public
schools by armed guards!
It's time for parents and grandparents to stand up and fight to
protect our
children. We can't think that just because it hasn't happened in our
school
yet that it never will! The radical homosexual activists won't stop
with
just the California schools. They won't stop with just the big city
schools. They won't stop until they have reached every school in the
nation.
DANGEROUS NEW BOOK PROVIDES ACADEMIC "COVER" FOR PEDOPHILES AND CHILD
MOLESTERS
The University of Minnesota Press has just published Judith Levine's
Harmful
to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. This book
includes
such outrageous statements as, "Sex is not harmful to children...
There are
many ways even the smallesst children can partake of it."
On another page, the author gushes over a "lush and mysterious" photo
of a
"naked 3- or 4-year-old." Quoting a variety of pedophiles, Levine
says
children are not necessarily harmed by sex with adults.
She also advocates that America adopt a law like Holland's that
legalizes
sex between adults and children as young as 12!
It's unbelievable, but this book is defended by the liberal media
elite.
I'm shocked and heartbroken. But we should not be surprised.
America's
standars of sexual morality have been belittled as "taboos," and been
worn
down step by step. Today, almost nothing is off limits.
Sex between adults and children is just the next barrier to be torn
down.
How long will it take these radical activists to achieve their next
evil
objective?
Our grade-school children are already being taught that cross-dressing
is
just wonderful self-expression. Graphic details of perverted sex
practices
are already being taught to high school children, and parents are
being
locked out of assemblies taught by radical homosexual activisits.
We must - and we can - stop this. NOW!
I grieve for our children and grandchildren. And I fear for our
nation if
we do not stand up to this assault of immorality and defeat it. I was
reminded of a passage in the Old Testament book of the prophet
Ezekiel. In
Chapter 22, the Lord recounts the many sins of Jerusalem, including
many
examples of sexual immorality and perversity. Finally God says,
"I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand
in the
breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I
found
none."
We need people who stand in the gap for our children and for America.
I ask
you to do three things. First, pray. This attack is spiritual, and
we must
fight back on our knees to defend our schools and our children.
Next, [join Concerned Women for America, contact through the web at
www.cwfa.org. This organization organizes petitions, etc.]
Finally, send a gift to help CWA fight our part of the battle (to CWA
not
BlessedCause, no affiliation)

If we act together, we can stand in the gap and halt this stealthy
assault
on our children.
I have CWA's tireless staff hitting this issue head on. We're
knocking on
doors of policymakers on Capitol Hill. We're taking the debate to the
networks, the cable TV channels, and the newspapers that shape public
opinion. And we're keeping a close eye on the evildoers to expose
them when
they make their next move.
To do all of this we need your help. Your gift today will help CWA
maintain
our powerful voice in defense of Biblical values.
More and more, the pro-family movement is turning to CWA for
leadership. If
we are unable to stand in the gap for our children, who will do it?
We know
the radical homosexual activists and all their allies intent on
corrupting
our children will not give up. They think they can lure our children
into
depravity while we sit by and do nothing.
I refuse to allow it!
Please join with me to stop this wicked agenda now.
Sincerely,
Beverly LaHaye
Founder and Chairman
PS I've learned that GLSEN now boasts a budget of 3.5 million and a
membership of more than 1,200 homosexual-activist educators. Their
mission
is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion in the schools under
any
guise that works. We must take strong, decisive action now before we
lose
our schools!



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 04:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS
So, you don't like the competition?
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-12 01:23:39 UTC
Permalink
The National Socialists made a movie called "The Eternal Jew". Anyone
can see their movie and see that one of the main reasons they were
against the Jews was because the Jews were promoting homosexual
perversion in the media. Here is an article they made about the movie:

"The self-portrait Jewry offered the world was disgusting from the
beginning. All that is overshadowed by the powerful examples in this
new and most valuable film, The Eternal Jew. This film with its
persuasive power must be shown everywhere where anti-Semitism is still
questioned. No one will will fail to shudder at the sneaking servility
and dirty bartering of the Jews when they start out, at the perfidy,
insidiousness and vulgarity of their methods, at the brutality and
all-devouring hatred they exhibit when they reach their goal and
control finance.
The most revolting scenes show Jewish slaughtering methods. These
customs, which cast a particularly vivid spotlight on the so-called
Jewish religion, are so terrible that it is hard to watch the film as
the grinning Jewish butchers carry out their work. It is illuminating
to see how stubbornly Jewry holds to its method of slaughter and with
which casuistry it defends it against the horror of the civilized
world. Rarely will people feel more horror than which watching the
desperate and horrible death struggle of the slaughtered animals. Long
before the seizure of power, the NSDAP fought against Jewish
slaughter. National Socialist representatives in parliament repeatedly
introduced legislation to abolish this form of animal torture through
a ban on Jewish slaughter. Such proposals were always rejected, since
the entire Jewish and Jewish-influenced press ran long articles
against them and the so-called German parties refused to support
National Socialism in its battle against this evil.
Not only in this regard, but in other areas too we are reminded with a
shudder of what once was reality in Germany: the power of the Jews in
the economy, finance, culture, theater, film, publishing, press,
radio, education and politics. All these Jewish leaders of the Weimar
era had their home or their origin in the filthy ghettos of the East.
One has a deep sense of salvation after seeing this film. We have
broken their power over us. We are the initiators of the fight against
world Jewry, which now directs its hate, its brutal greed and
destructive will toward us. We must win this battle for ourselves, for
Europe, for the world. This film will be a valuable tool in that
struggle."


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-12 01:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
The National Socialists made a movie called "The Eternal Jew".
Nah, a Three Stooges movie would be more interesting and it would
be on a higher intellectual level than your silly movie.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-12 03:33:40 UTC
Permalink
England's Guilt
by Joseph Goebbels

It is a major error to assume that England's plutocrats slipped into
the war against their will or even against their intentions. The
opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all
the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They
surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal
other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and
this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.
Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the
Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not
support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian
reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help
of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any
measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring
clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of
aggression against Germany.
The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was
traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always
directed its main military might against Germany. It never could
tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by
claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.
Today there is still another reason. The English warmongers conceal
it. It is crassly egotistic. The English prime minister announced the
day the war began that England's goal was to destroy Hitlerism.
However, he defined Hitlerism in a way other than how the English
plutocracy actually sees it. The English warmongers claim that
National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure
against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger
for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality,
however, there is another reason for England's war with Germany. The
English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to
conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England
controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has
never threatened English interests.
So when Chamberlain says that England wants to destroy Hitlerism in
this war, he is in one sense incorrect. But in another sense, he is
speaking the truth. England does want to destroy Hitlerism. It sees
Hitlerism as the present internal state of the Reich, which is a thorn
in the eye of English plutocracy.
England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's
state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest
land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact
the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of
this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished,
socially enslaved and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter
of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs.
Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is
there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums.
Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of
it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly
brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate from making
major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve
capitalist democracy.
Capitalism democracy suffers from every possible modern social
ailment. The Lords and City people can remain the richest people one
earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting
their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own
country.
Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and
modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English
plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy
Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that
have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly
fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English
capitalism.
That is why England declared war on Germany. Since it was accustomed
to letting others fight its wars, it looked to the European continent
to find those ready to fight for England's interests. France was ready
to take on this degrading duty, since the same kind of people ruled
France. They too were ready for war out of egotistic reasons. Western
European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that
rules the world. It declared war on German socialism because it
endangered their capitalist interests.
A similar drama began in 1914. England had more luck during those four
and a half years than it is having today. Europe's nations had no
chance to see what was happening. The nations of Europe today have no
desire to play the same role they played during the World War. England
and France stand alone. Still, England is trying once again to wage
war without making any personal sacrifice. The goal is to blockade
Germany, to gradually bring it to submit by starvation. That is
longstanding English policy. They used it successfully in the
Napoleonic wars, and also during the World War. It would work now as
well, if the German people had not been educated by National
Socialism. National Socialism is immune to English temptations.
English propaganda lies no longer work in Germany. They have gradually
lost their effectiveness in the rest of the world as well, since
German propaganda today reaches far beyond its borders. This time,
English plutocracy will not succeed in driving a wedge between the
German people and their leadership, though that is their goal.
The German nation today is defending not only its honor and
independence, but also the great social accomplishments it has made
through hard and untiring work since 1933. It is a people's state
built on the foundation of justice and economic good sense. In the
past, England always had the advantage of facing a fragmented Germany.
It is only natural that English plutocracy today seeks to split the
German people and make it ripe for new collapse.
English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper
names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people,
only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England
was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England
wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people. But that did not
stop English plutocracy from brutally and relentlessly suppressing the
Boers after that war or the Germans after our defeat.
A child once burned is twice shy. The German people were once victims
of lying English war propaganda. Now it understands the situation. It
has long understood the background of this war. It knows that behind
all English plutocratic capitalism's fine words, its aim is to destroy
Germany's social achievements. We are defending the socialism we have
build in Germany since 1933 with every military, economic and
spiritual means at our disposal. The bald English lies have no impact
on the German people.
English plutocracy is finally being forced to defend itself. In the
past, it always found other nations to fight for it. This time, the
English people must themselves risk their necks for the lords and City
men. They will meet a unified German people of workers, farmers and
soldiers who are prepared to defend their nation with every means at
their disposal.
We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy
forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have
to pay for it.
The whole world is waking up today. It can no longer be ruled by the
capitalist methods of the 19th Century. The peoples have matured. They
will one day deal a terrible blow to the capitalist plutocrats who are
the cause of their misery.
It is no accident that National Socialism has the historical task of
carrying out this reckoning. Plutocracy is collapsing intellectually,
spiritually, and in the not too distant future, militarily. We are
acting consistently with Nietzsche's words: "Give a shove to what is
falling."


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-11 02:21:33 UTC
Permalink
"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"
Himmler <
What you forget is that Himmler and Hitler were morally degenerate, and that
leading you into racism and hatred is morally degenerate.
Topaz
2005-02-12 01:24:28 UTC
Permalink
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

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



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-12 01:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
you haven't won any arguments here.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
JimR
2005-02-10 00:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Orthodox Jews have been more sympathetic to the use of public funds to
assist children attending religious schools and to the display of
religious
symbols on public property.
Well, you know the old saying:

"Business is Business!"
David V.
2005-02-10 03:19:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:04:04 -0800, "David V."
Post by David V.
Then you must have the wrong USA. The one I live in is ruled
by the Religious Reich.
Then why isn't abortion and homosexual perversion outlawed?
They're working on it.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-11 00:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:04:04 -0800, "David V."
Post by David V.
Then you must have the wrong USA. The one I live in is ruled
by the Religious Reich.
Then why isn't abortion and homosexual perversion outlawed?
They're working on it.
Nonsense, they may work on getting votes from people who want that,
but they serve the Jews who are the real rulers of America. Look up
which groups are for homosexually perverted marriage. The Jews are for
it.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/442598.html
By Tsahar Rotem

Tel Aviv tomorrow hosts the seventh Gay Pride Parade under the banner
"Proud
Family." Organizers anticipate some 150,000 participants, due to the
improving security situation.
Official well-wishers include Justice Minister Yosef Lapid (Shinui);
Yahad
Chairman Yossi Beilin; MK Eitan Cabel (Labor); and Deputy Mayor Yael
Dayan.
Mayor Ron Huldai will be out of the country.

This year, dire financial straits have prompted the Agudah - The
Association
of Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender in Israel, to charge a
nominal fee of NIS 10 to cover security costs at the enclosed
performance
area at Ganei Yehoshua in Yarkon Park.

The parade will leave from Rabin Square at 1 P.M. and make its way
toward
the park, where the happening is scheduled to start at 4 P.M. As
always,
marchers will be accompanied by colorful floats, dancers and music.
Performers include Maya Buskila, the Pik Sisters and Tal Segev, but
organizers promise "further surprises" on the bill.

A first-ever survey of the needs of the community in Tel Aviv will be
launched at the parade, where the questionnaire will be distributed,
and
later extended to popular community venues, Internet sites and a
telephone
mailbox.



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 01:30:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:19:34 -0800, "David V."
Post by David V.
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:04:04 -0800, "David V."
Post by David V.
Then you must have the wrong USA. The one I live in is
ruled by the Religious Reich.
Then why isn't abortion and homosexual perversion
outlawed?
They're working on it.
Nonsense
I know. all of what you spew is nonsense.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-11 01:49:22 UTC
Permalink
NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip
Lee Duigon

If a private citizen tells his neighbor's children that they ought to
try
gay sex, he might wind up in a correctional facility. If he talks that
way
to your 13-year-old son, you'll want him put away--pronto.

But when this very same behavior, toward the same children, is
displayed by
adults who belong to America's biggest teachers' union, most parents
simply
let them do it. In fact, they pay them to.

The NEA is committed to the cause of militant homosexuality. It's the
richest, most politically powerful union in America, and it has daily
access
to most of America's children. And it wants to recruit them for the
homosexual lifestyle.

Lean this equation, America:

Public schools=The homosexual agenda

If you don't believe it, visit nea-glc.org/, the website of the
National
Education Association's Gay and Lesbian Coalition. There, among their
"great
achievements" in shaping NEA policy, the homosexual militants cite the
NEA's
promotion of "the lesbian-gay-bisexual curriculum" and "family life
education... regarding the diversity of sexual orientation."

The NEA has also campaigned for the proclamation of
"Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual History Month" (try putting that on
a
T-shirt), homosexual studies at Catholic colleges--and, of course,
homosexual "marriage."

The people of Massachusetts know the teachers' union's commitment to
"gay
marriage." Aline Isaacson of GLSEN (Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education
Network),
the media's favorite poster gal for "gay marriage", is
also--surprise!--a
paid consultant to the Massachusetts teachers' union. Paid in taxpayer
dollars, to boot. (You may remember Massachusetts GLSEN from a few
years ago
as the organizers of graphic, intensely perverted sex "workshops" for
public
school children--a scandal that came to be known as "fist-gate.")

Ms. Isaacson, according to the grass-roots Article 8 Alliance, these
days
makes it a full-time job lobbying state legislators to keep them from
jumping ship on "gay marriage" and voting for the Bill of Address
which
would remove the outlaw Supreme Judicial Court judges who imposed this
oxymoron on the people of Massachusetts. Supported by taxpayers'
money, she
makes daily, face-to-face visits to individual lawmakers. Nice work if
you
can get it.

Too bad you couldn't make it to the gym teachers' state convention in
New
Jersey, in February. It wasn't about volleyball. For public school gym
teachers, Job One--according to the convention's floor displays,
handouts,
posters, and workshop topics (all of which I saw personally)--is
getting the
kids comfy with homosexuality. To this end, they handed out a
"resource
guide"--handsomely produced, slick, paid for largely by Fleet Bank
Inc.--intended for distribution in all the public schools. (For more
information, see my article, "Now It's the Gym Teachers," in the
February
archive of the Chalcedon website, chalcedon.edu.)

You would have seen even more of the same at "Twenty Years of Great
Sex
(Ed)" last year, a national conference of "sex educators" hosted by
Rutgers,
New Jersey's taxpayer-funded state university. Again, there was no
effort to
hide the educators' whole-hearted penchant for homosexuality...





www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 04:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip
That's far better than letting the likes of you around my kids.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
FreeThink
2005-02-08 06:40:09 UTC
Permalink
I want to start a dialog with you Topaz so please don't attack me in
your response.
Post by Topaz
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism".
To some degree I think you are right. I don't think all opportunities
should or could be shared equally between men and women. Equal
opportunity for men and women seems obvious to me though. Do you favor
equality for women if the have to follow the same rules?
Post by Topaz
This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
True. Sexual roles don't have much relevance to social roles though.
People do seem confused these days, however. I have a hard time finding
a woman who is traditional in her sexual role and also independent when
not having sex. It has to be just as hard for women who feel the same
way I do to find compatible men.
Post by Topaz
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
I can think of a lot of things that are contrary to human nature.
Ussually, its the right that has a problem with them.
Post by Topaz
The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan.
Are you really suggesting that a major motivation for bombing
Afganistan was feminism??
Post by Topaz
The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these
countries
Post by Topaz
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
They sell what the people want to pay for. You have it backwards. Stop
blaming institutions for your problems and start being responsible for
yourself. That is unless you really do think you are incapable of much.
If that is true please stop posting.
Post by Topaz
Feminism is something we must always fight against.
Feminisim only means you beleive in equal opportunity for women.
Post by Topaz
But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio
# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)
Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria,
Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl Friedan,
the
mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist, best-selling
author,
professor, a founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), the
National
Women's Political Caucus, and the First Women's Bank, researcher,
journalist,
Democrat, clinical psychologist, and grandmother, Betty Friedan was
the most
influential feminist of the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and
others as
an "initiator of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings
and
lectures, including the highly influential books THE FEMININE
MYSTIQUE
Post by Topaz
and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live
and work...
When the war against fascism ended two decades later, four million
women lost
their jobs to returning GIs. Women were again told that their place
was in the
home. The freedom to work to build up and defend their nation was
over. Men
would earn the family's bread. What the boys needed was a warm place
to come
home to every night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some
of the
values toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen,
church) as the
Nazis they thought they had defeated...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
muizenkatten
2005-02-08 12:10:04 UTC
Permalink
but... when we perceive ourselves as doing something suggestion
rejection or abandonment. Our reactions run to indignation and
outrage...we are schocked by the new freedom from hunger...
Topaz
2005-02-09 00:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
I want to start a dialog with you Topaz so please don't attack me in
your response.
Post by Topaz
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism".
To some degree I think you are right. I don't think all opportunities
should or could be shared equally between men and women. Equal
opportunity for men and women seems obvious to me though. Do you favor
equality for women if the have to follow the same rules?
No, men and women should have different roles.
Post by FreeThink
Post by Topaz
This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
True. Sexual roles don't have much relevance to social roles though.
People do seem confused these days, however. I have a hard time finding
a woman who is traditional in her sexual role and also independent when
not having sex. It has to be just as hard for women who feel the same
way I do to find compatible men.
The best job for women is to be a mother. And this should be a paid
occupation with a paycheck from the state.
Post by FreeThink
I can think of a lot of things that are contrary to human nature.
Ussually, its the right that has a problem with them.
Are you really suggesting that a major motivation for bombing
Afganistan was feminism??
Yes
Post by FreeThink
They sell what the people want to pay for. You have it backwards. Stop
blaming institutions for your problems and start being responsible for
yourself. That is unless you really do think you are incapable of much.
If that is true please stop posting.
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
Post by FreeThink
Feminisim only means you beleive in equal opportunity for women.
White women should be mothers. And the more intelligent they are
the more reason they should be mothers. Our race is in grave danger:

Paul Craig Roberts

December 7, 2000

For whom the bells toll

There won't always be an England or a United States. Both are already
fading, not from military conquest but from their own immigration
policy.
Demographers have calculated that by the end of this century the
English
people will be a minority in their homeland. The English are not
having
enough children to reproduce themselves. In contrast, the "people of
color"
who have flooded into England have a high fertility rate. Non-whites
will
comprise a majority of the population of London in just nine years.

It is amazing how fast it is happening. Half a century ago, there were
only
a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the entirety of Great
Britain. In
another half century, there will be the beginnings of a black
government.
What will be the fate of the white minority after decades of being
demonized
as "white racists" by their own kind at Oxford, Cambridge and the
University
of London?

The English may be finished as a people, but they still have twice as
long
as American whites. Demographers predict that whites will comprise a
minority of the U.S. population by mid-century. It has already
happened in
California and in many cities.

Like the English, American whites are failing to reproduce. More than
42
percent of American women of childbearing age are childless. The
figure is
rising as gender quotas, and the breakdown of marriage and family pull
more
white women onto career paths that don't lead to children.

Examining the situation, the London Observer said that that this is
"the
first time in history that a major indigenous population has
voluntarily
become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease."

It is amazing that the two most important and powerful countries of
the past
two centuries have legislated their own path to extinction. But it is
astounding that it is occurring in the same two countries where
intellectuals prattle on endlessly about the need for diversity. There
are
many more non-white countries than white ones; yet, it is the white
ones
that are slated to disappear.

What's wrong with having an England? What a colorful and unique place!
What
character and genius! The cradle of the rule of law and representative
democracy! The font of the scientific and technological revolutions!
It is
absurd to think these accomplishments are happenstance unrelated to
Englishness. Do we really need yet another black country, another
India, or
a mixture of the two? Why can't we keep England English for
diversity's
sake?

And the United States. What other country has such a strong sense of
right
and wrong, and such determination to see justice done all over the
world?
Who but the United States sends its treasure, not as tribute to the
powerful
but as gifts to the poor? What other country sends its troops to stop
genocides and wars in foreign lands? Central and South America are
full of
Hispanic populations. Do we really need another one here?

What is it that compels the United States and England to destroy
themselves
with an immigration policy designed to replace the indigenous
population
with different racial stock? In these two lands, agitators fight to
preserve
every wetlands weed, sand fly and snail darter. What's wrong with
preserving
England and America?

People had better give this some thought, because the decision won't
be
theirs to make for much longer.

The 21st century may bring the extinction of white populations.
Confined to
a small area of the world, white populations are everywhere in
decline.
Italy, once a fecund Catholic nation where a large family was
everything,
has such a low birth rate that its population is declining. Everywhere
else
in Europe birth rates have fallen below replacement rates. European
governments open the borders to Third World immigrants in order to
keep a
tax base for the expensive social welfare systems that have crowded
children
out of the household budgets of the indigenous population. Canada,
also, is
well on her way to becoming a Third World country.

Russia, too, has a declining population reeling from the environmental
and
economic destruction after 75 years of communist rule. Pressed on her
eastern and southern borders by Asiatic populations, Russia is slowly
retreating from her empire.

In the far Pacific, two island nations, New Zealand and Australia,
hang on
to an exported British culture. Perhaps they will be preserved, like
the
Galapagos Islands, as a place where creatures reside who have
disappeared
elsewhere.





www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-09 03:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
No, men and women should have different roles.
Why?
Post by Topaz
The best job for women is to be a mother. And this should be a
paid occupation with a paycheck from the state.
Andrea Yates is a good example motherhood. How much would you
pay her?
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
muizenkatten
2005-02-09 10:02:52 UTC
Permalink
It's wonderful... Money talks : QUCCI or supermark Wal Mart ?? Tax free
or not ??
Topaz
2005-02-09 23:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Topaz
No, men and women should have different roles.
Why?
Because they are different people:

This speech delivered by Dr. Walter Grob, the head of the Nazi Party's
Office of Racial Policy. He was speaking to a women's meeting at the
Gau Party Rally in Cologne on 13 October 1934. After this speech I
will make my comment on it.
My Dear German Women and Girls!
When Germans come together today to discuss the things that concern us
both as individuals and as a nation, it is a solemn occasion, whether
we wish it to be or not. During the political struggles of the past,
we could speak of party programs or of civilization without any
involvement of our soul.
Now we have forgotten how to approach an issue merely with our
understanding, merely with our mouth, merely with our heart. We have
become whole people once again. When we speak with others, we do so
with our full being.
That is what made the movement strong, and great, and powerful from
its first days. It is also that which the enemy on this side of the
border and the other cannot understand, and which it hates with deadly
strength. As this great and beautiful people's movement began, so too
began a hard and bitter struggle between enemy and German forces,
between an old world that is really long dead and buried, and the new
world that is struggling to reach the light through us. This struggle
has been going on in people's hearts and souls for years, and is
nowhere near its end. The world finds it difficult to understand that
which is at the center of our endeavors:
the value of blood and race.
Our enemies first laughed in pity, then in hatred as we spoke of it.
Let us speak of what we National Socialists mean by that so that it
will become clear why the German woman may be even more concerned
about these matters than the man, his state, and his fighting
organization can be.
There was a time in the past when we were untrue, untrue in the
deepest sense. We were untrue not to other people, or parties, or
states, or kings, but untrue to something far greater, untrue to the
laws of life. As long as the world exists, as long as life grows,
flourishes and perishes, so long will this life have the urge to live
on into the future and win new territory. Whether plant or animal or
man-as we, or I, or you:
wherever there is life, it has the longing to bring forth new life.
It should be unnecessary to speak of such things. We speak of them
only because for a few decades a crazy era ignored, blasphemed and
mocked these greatest, most beautiful and purest dreams of life. This
was an age that made the idol of money supreme and said: "The world
should be governed not be what serves life, rather by what some fool
of an accountant decides is best." We know the results. The great laws
of life were evaluated according to money sacks and checkbooks. When
we think back on our parents, grandparents and great grandparents,
there were many children in the house. It may have been crowded and
hard financially, but we were happy, perhaps because there were so
many of us in so large a family. But the time came when people said:
"As man or woman, as parents or teachers of leaders, you have the duty
to show the people the way to a better future." That better future,
people thought, could only be a richer future, a future in which the
individual had more money. And when they were asked where this money
would come from, a false teaching arose in the last century: "The
fewer people there are, the more an individual child can inherit from
his parents." He who loves his children and wishes a prosperous future
for his nation should therefore see to it that Germany's population is
small, and that only a few children continue the family after he is
gone. That was the terrible teaching of birth control, which Marxism
preached and the bourgeois followed. No one dared stand against it.
That was the doctrine that made us what we are today:
a dying people,
in which fewer children are born each year, in which today more people
die each year than are born. This all was supposed to lead to a happy
future. It understood happiness only in terms of possessions. It was
therefore inherently false. But even in its own terms it was false,
for it forgot something:
When a people begins to die, when a people no longer obeys the laws of
life, when a people values money more than its existence and
posterity, this people is on the path to disaster, both historically
and politically. Within a few decades it will be dead, oppressed by
other peoples who are stronger, closer to life, and who follow life's
laws better than we.
If present trends continue, by the end of the century Germany will be
a nation with only 40-50 million inhabitants,
and we know that on our borders other peoples are growing quickly and
strongly. Sooner or later, these other peoples will come in conflict
with a shrinking and dying German people, and the result of the
supposed doctrine of happiness will be a hard and bitter
national death for our children.
Those who believed that they can give their children a happy and
peaceful future by reducing the number of children err deeply. They
give the children only the promise of a hard and bitter struggle for
Germany's existence as a state and as an idea.
Today when we work to show people that the ideas of yesterday are
false, that the state and nation cannot do without the family, that
the family cannot exist without children, and when we not only provide
economic support to make it easier to begin families and have
children, but also tell people again and again of the sanctity of life
and the necessity of continuing our people into the future, our
enemies on both sides of the border suddenly have insults and hateful
things to say about us. They wish to disturb our work. Suddenly there
are voices saying: "National Socialism's doctrines are inhumane and
barbaric. National Socialism's views on children turn people into
breeding animals. When it says
that it is the duty of men and women to continue the eternal chain of
life, a chain that begins in the distant past and continues into the
future, a chain of which we are only a link leading into the distant
future,
our enemies on both sides of the border claim: "You reject the dignity
and value of humanity. National Socialism holds that men and women
have no value other than that of breeding cattle." It is a shame that
we have to respond to such words, but it is necessary because our
enemies have always tried to persuade women to oppose us, even though
what we say is rooted in the souls of the men and women we speak to.
This is our response: "You are mistaken in accusing us of thinking
that the only purpose of humanity is to continue the species by
passing on our blood to future generations. We know the other values.
We support them and find wherever we can those values that the
individual shows in his work and selfless service. We know well enough
that
each person lives a double life. The first is the one he lives between
birth and death. We are to do as much as we can to make this life
rich, to accomplish that which is good and beautiful, to use our
strengths and gifts for others. That is the duty of the individual.
But as a person you are something more:
You are a member of the chain of life, a drop in the great bloodstream
of your people.
There too you have duties and obligations before the eternity of the
nation. You have the duty to pass on what you received from your
parents and ancestors. I do not believe that such behavior, which
obeys both the laws of reason and of life, is barbaric, hateful or
inhumane. I believe instead that the barbarism is to be found in the
years we have left behind us, when any dirty lout could besmirch the
most valuable, holy life of a man or women in their families, or drag
children through the filth, without anyone defending their culture
against such an attack.
I believe that when we tell people once more of the great value of
blood, and remind them that they have duties not only for the 60-year
span in which they work and serve, but also to the millennia of the
past from which we come and to the millennia of the future to which we
are heading, then we are giving them higher values than those of
yesterday. Let me say also, however, that it is wrong if someone
thinks that only those who found families and bear children are
valuable to our state. We know that is not so. We know there are
reasons why some people leave their people's flow of blood. We know
that some are denied what the nation places great value on. We do not
ignore them or think ourselves their betters. We only say this: "My
friend, you and I must do our duty to our people, and when we cannot
fulfill it in one way, then we must do what we can with even greater
energy and devotion.
When you do your duty, you are one of us,
we extend our hand to you, we honor your humanity and your service for
Germany. Let us work together so that in the future, as many people as
possible will be able to serve the nation in both ways.
That is a piece of the thinking of blood and race that National
Socialism has taught us. And there is another aspect. When we see
people today, we can recognize that we are not all alike. There are
differences in value;
each person does not have the same value as everyone else.
In the past, people believed that these differences were superficial,
the result of the environment in which one grew up. People believed
that what became of a person depended primarily on the house he grew
up in or in his social environment, or the class he came from. They
believed that a person born in a slum, surrounded by shadows, troubles
and poverty, a child lacking in love and affection, could only become
a second-class human being, a physically and psychologically ill
member of the society, someone failed by the society and the state.
One thought that a child growing up in such slum inevitably became
sick, or even criminal. It was because he grew up in such a poor
environment. The Marxists claimed that if every child in Germany grew
up in an environment that gave him all he needed, he would inevitably
become a useful, decent, upright, proud and honest adult. After a few
years or decades, the entire German people would consist of such
decent and useful people. In the past people believed the environment
was responsible even when a person failed miserably.
We recall the days of delirium, when millions of unemployed had been
thrown on the street by a sick political and economic system, made
superfluous. A single person pried the tracks apart and derailed a
train in the middle of the night. Within a minute he murdered 30
innocent people who had never done anything to him, and stole their
money. And what did the world of yesterday say? "He can't help
himself. He is a victim of circumstances. He has Beethoven's hands and
an artistic temperament. We need not put him on the gallows or in
prison to protect us and our children. No, this poor Schlesinger is
only sick because of his environment. Put him in a modern sanitarium,
give him what he needs: radio, a library, a smoking salon, a language
teacher, a pastor, a newspaper room, give him everything he needs to
put him in touch with better things. In a few years, this mass
murderer of 30 people will leave as an ideal human being, so pure and
innocent that one can put him in charge of a kindergarten." That's
what people thought in the past.
Today that seems a bad joke to us, a crazy fantasy, but a few years
ago it was government policy in Germany. Those who did well under such
policies and have joined to fight us think that they can accuse our
doctrines of blood and race as barbaric.
Why do we see things differently? Because we have learned something:
In the end, you are not as important and significant as you thought
yesterday;
your strength and abilities are not as great as you believed during
the liberal era. Oh yes, it was a lovely dream to say: "I will do with
my life what I want, and if I happen to be a teacher, I will teach
what I want, and do what I enjoy, and what I think right." Well, that
was your idea of the environment.
We are a bit more modest, a bit more humble before the laws of fate.
We have learned that what I can do for myself or what you can do for
yourself, or what we can all do to each other, is not as important, or
as deep, as that which a greater power has already done to us. It is
that power that even before our birth gave us a part of our nature,
and laid out our path for us in the world. Here are joined two things:
the knowledge of modern science and the sensitivity and understanding
of a humble person. Suddenly we see that:
What you are, what I am and what I can be in my life is in part
predetermined by that which I have inherited.
If my inheritance is good and strong, and if I am true to it and
develop what is within me, my life will be successful, and perhaps of
benefit and joy to others. If such an inheritance is denied me, or if
for some inexplicable reason fate has given me other, perhaps weak,
perhaps even bad traits, I can struggle against them for my entire
life, and will still not be able to rid myself of that which slumbers
in me because of the actions of a higher power.
We see then that a good part of a people's history is determined by
what it has inherited. If we ask what sorts of physical or
intellectual traits these may be, or what groups there are, we will
see that each people has three groups. The first is a large group of
people with average gifts, the most of us who are able to deal with
the normal problems life presents us with. Next there is a very small
group. This group has received a better inheritance than most of us,
not because of any particular virtue on its part, but simply because
of fate. The leaders of humanity, those who build states, lead people,
or touch the soul, come from this group. And there is a third small
group with particular traits, also not their fault: those who are sick
or genetically defective. They are not up to the challenges of life,
and need outside help to survive.
As humanity of a nation go through the centuries, the decisive fact is
which of these three groups is the strongest. One might say: "That is
not a question at all. The strongest will win, the group from which
the leaders come. This superior group has to be the strongest in the
end, it must gradually have its way." Well, that is how things would
be without people, if people with their little brains did not believe
that they could change the laws of life given to the world by heaven.
Man has interfered in these matters. He has tried to change the laws
of struggle and existence and selection. Those were ancient laws of
life, to which men too were subject:
That which cannot meet the challenges dies.
That is hard, perhaps, but it is also the way that nature makes life
stronger and better. Man has tried more and more to abolish these
laws. He has kept life going by using artificial means in cases where,
left to itself, it would have ended. He used all his understanding,
love and sympathy to keep a person alive, even when it is no joy, but
only a burden and misery. We now keep thousands, even tens of
thousands of unhappy creatures alive through artificial means, those
to whom life itself has denied the right to life. But keeping them
alive was not itself the problem. What is worse is that they were
given the opportunity to pass on their unfortunate physical and mental
characteristics. That was the worst that happened: we took the
physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically defective criminals
and not only kept them alive and cared for them-that is our duty as
human beings, which we certainly do not want to ignore in the future
either-and gave them the ability to have children with the same
deficiencies, thus doubling or multiplying their misery. The German
people do not know the extent of this misery, it does not know the
depressing spirit of the homes where thousands of cripples live their
lives only by being fed and cared for, poor creatures who are worse
than any animal. The animal at least is as it should be. These poor
creatures are distortions of life, no joy either to themselves or
others. They are a burden throughout their miserable existences, but
thanks to the selfless care and devotion of those who care for them
may live 60, 70 or 80 years. The German people do not realize the
enormous sums that have been spent for decades, money that is taken
from those who are healthy, who could do something useful, but cannot
because the money is lacking.
There was a winter in which children in Bavaria did not even have
wooden shoes to wear as they walked through the snow on their way to
school. They had to walk for hours bare-footed. At the same time, the
government made sure that those unfortunate souls in a large
institution had fresh bananas twice a week so that they got the
necessary vitamins. But these vitamins could not give them joy or
strength or health. But they were thus denied to those somewhere in
the Bavarian forest, or in the Ruhr, or in a poor fishing village on
the Frisian coast, where they could have reduced the poverty and need
in some worker's house. At the same time there was a case where
a single mentally ill Negro of English citizenship lived for 16 years
in an institution in Berlin, costing 26,000 Marks.
26,000 Marks were thrown away on a life that had no meaning. 26,000
Marks that could have been used to prepare a dozen strong, healthy and
gifted children for life and a job.
But I am not speaking of this as a kind of theft. Money is not an end
in itself. Rather, we have here committed a theft of spirit and soul,
because we tried to persuade the nation and humanity that our own
greatness could come from sacrificing for the worst and most helpless.
In the end, we went so far as
to put the sick and the dying before the young, strong, healthy and
promising.
That is against nature and life. A nation going this way is heading
for the abyss. We went so far as to preach year after year to healthy
families that they should have no children, or at most one, else they
sinned against the nation and the spirit of this enlightened age. But
if some imbecile of a whore and a genetically ill criminal had
children, they were not only a financial burden for their entire
lives, but also took the labor of people who our society gave nothing
better to do than to change these poor creatures three times a day and
feed them. That is a perversion of everything great and healthy, and
is a sin against life and the spirit of creation.
With full knowledge of our duties as human beings and the requirements
of pity, we made the decision not to allow such miserable creatures to
pass on their misery to the next generation, multiplied perhaps two or
three or more times. That is a major accomplishment, for which our
children and their children will one day thank us.
I know that there are those who will say: "You are meddling in matters
that are not your concern. You are interfering in an area outside
human control. Life and death are not in the hands of man, but in
those of a higher power. If God wants sick and genetically ill people
to be born, you may not interfere through laws, operations, or any
other measures with God's will. And if you do so-and you have with
your Law to Prevent Inherited Illness-then you are acting against the
will of God, and you are heretics."
This is our answer: "My friend, you are wrong. It is true that we are
subject to a higher power. We humans may never interfere with the
great laws of the Creator. But you are wrong. See the laws the Creator
has established for his world and your life. The great law is that
life must be able to preserve itself, and that if it cannot, it will
collapse. It is the hard, brutal law of the struggle for existence and
of selection and extinction. It was the law we saw day by day, hour by
hour, under all the clouds of heaven and all the stars of the sky, in
which life seemed to find a senseless death, whether plant or animal
or person, whether in distant Africa or near us.
That which cannot meet the challenges of life dies, no matter how much
pain it causes,
and even if your small understanding or mind cannot comprehend it,
these are the great laws of life and the world that God himself gave
us. These are the laws, my German friend, that in our crazy fantasies
we broke in the past."
With overweening human pride and false pity, we broke the great law
and kept those alive who under the laws of God would long since have
perished.
Today we are once more following these old laws, using humane methods,
for they follow a more hard and brutal course in nature according to
God's will. We are doing nothing more than reestablishing the laws of
creation, and bowing to the heavenly order. We are thus showing piety
and true humility-you are the heretics.
This applies as well to the third and last principle of our racial
thinking. This third and last principle is that the people on this
world, in America, Africa or China, are different both in body and
soul. They are not equal, as yesterday's lie had it.
People are different.
They not only speak different languages and look different: no, they
are different in the depths of their hearts and natures, and in their
abilities for good and evil. In the past people believed that these
differences were accidental, the result of climate or civilization,
and that one could overcome these differences and create a unified man
in a unified state in which all would be equally happy. We have
learned that such ideas are false. We have learned that the
differences between the major blood groups of the world, between the
major races, are not the result of human action, but of the laws of
Creation. We have learned that the lines between blood and blood, race
and race, are also the lines between soul and soul and spirit and
spirit. We have learned that the opposite of the old phrase "What God
has brought together, let no man put asunder" is also true. We have
learned:
What God has separated, man should not bring together.
Heaven thought it good not to have only one type of people on the
earth, but different kinds, various racially-bound peoples. That is a
part of Creation. We bow before this truth and respect the borders.
That means that the foundation of our separation of the races is not a
matter of politics or economics, rather it rests on a higher level, to
which we in the end are responsible.
In our Reich, we are separating that which belongs to us, because it
is blood of our blood, from that which does not belong to us, because
it is foreign. We are doing that which is right not only for the
moment, but for eternity.
Believe me, my dear German fellow citizens, it is not true, as some
say, that this doctrine is a sign of arrogance or superiority or
boasting. We do not think ourselves better than the other races on the
earth. No, we do not think ourselves better, nor do we believe that
others are worse than we are. We insist only on one thing-a law
established by the Creator himself:
Man differs from man and race from race in this world.
The others may not be better or worse, but they are different than we
are, and because they are different than we are, there is a kind of
wall between us that is part of the laws of life. That is the core of
National Socialism's racial thinking. Our goal is not to insult
others, to say: "What a great guy I am!" Rather, we hold to the humble
recognition that each healthy piece of life has its corner of the
world, and its special tasks. This is just as true of humans as it is
of plants and animals in all their multiplicity. We know that one type
is no more valuable than another. But we also know that each variety
of life has a right to existence only as long as it keeps itself pure
and strong. Only when a tree bears the proper fruit does it have a
right to live. Otherwise it will be cut down and destroyed. We do not
know why things are the way they are, and it would be foolish to ask
the reason. That is how things are. Our task is to humbly accept the
laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that we
are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos. That is not
because of our virtues, nor it is our fault, nor was it our will. It
was fate that came from above. We have no choice but to accept this
fate and to develop the abilities that fate has given us according to
necessity and law.
Others may develop in their own way, in their own land. We must listen
to the depths of our own people, to draw from blood and inheritance
the strength we need to build our homeland. A higher power will take
care of the life beyond.
I believe, my dear German fellow citizens, that everyone who is of our
spirit will grant the correctness of our thinking about blood and
race, and will say: "I see now that you are not only on the right
path, but are honest and in the deepest sense true to demands that are
greater than the laws of man."
Let us then together follow the path to a new worldview. Let us go the
path of blood and race, which does not ignore faith and knowledge and
a sense of higher powers. Let us go this path, not a path of matter,
superstition and heresy, rather a path of deep humility and piety
before the laws of God. Let us go along this path together and listen
to the deepest depths where blood and soul rule. Let us draw from
there the strength to build the state, and even more important the
Reich. It will be a Reich not only of politics, a Reich of
organization, or the economy, but a Reich of people. Germany today has
the fortune to find a new way, led by a great Fuehrer. German women
today have the good fortune to see a strong and loyal woman at their
head. Let us together go forward, hand in hand, as befits comrades
building the future, and let us join the strength of men and women,
rooted deep in their blood, to build what the world has never before
seen:
The holy Reich of the German soul.
Heil!

My comment:

The part about the unfit dying may make some people uneasy. It makes
me uneasy also. But he did say:

"we took the physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically
defective criminals and not only kept them alive and cared for
them-that is our duty as human beings, which we certainly do not want
to ignore in the future either"

We should certainly take care of them. That will not be a problem.
We will save billions of dollars when we stop sending this money to
the Jews country every year.

We should also sterilize them. We will care for them and many work
hours will be done to provide for them, and all we ask in return is
for them not to pass their misfortune onto more generations. We are
not asking to much at all.

It was a great speech. It has policies that would make a nation
unimaginably great. The future would be a heaven on earth. Heil
Hitler.
Post by David V.
Post by Topaz
The best job for women is to be a mother. And this should be a
paid occupation with a paycheck from the state.
Andrea Yates is a good example motherhood. How much would you
pay her?
I looked her up on the internet to see what you meant. Very few
mothers are like that.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-10 02:29:58 UTC
Permalink
"... The world finds it difficult to understand that which is at the
center of our endeavors: the value of blood and race. ... " <
And you would speak of other people's "sickness"? You should address your
own.
" ... As long as the world exists, as long as life grows, flourishes and
perishes, so long will this life have the urge to live on into the future
and win new territory. ... " <
Ah yes, the life in the jungle. Hardly a moral example. I presume this means
that I and my family may expand and take ownership of all you and your
family possess?
... The part about the unfit dying may make some people uneasy. It makes
me uneasy also. But he did say: "we took the physically weak, the mentally
ill, the genetically defective criminals and not only kept them alive and
cared for them-that is our duty as human beings, which we certainly do not
want to ignore in the future either"... <
But what of the morally unfit? You know, the Nazi's and their ilk?
... We should also sterilize them. ... <
Step right up, son. Don't mind me, I'm just sharpening my scalpal.
It was a great speech. It has policies that would make a nation
unimaginably great. The future would be a heaven on earth. Heil Hitler. <
Hitler's idea of a "great" nation was one that pampered his childish desire
for power. He was not an adult.
Topaz
2005-02-11 00:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
moment
I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
literature and
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
needed
only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
highly
lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
questions.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
being
infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,
the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
far
that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
filth
directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
ought
to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existance ten
thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers
in
poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could
not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.
"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people?
"I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
result
of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I
had
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
artistic
tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
people
who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not
be
gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to
examine my
favorite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."



"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."




www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 01:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Why should we be interested in that crap?
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-11 01:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

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

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."

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

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 04:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Here's a quote form someone far smarter than your hitler;

Bart Simpson; "kiss my ass."
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-12 01:25:34 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.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-10 03:22:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:06:46 -0800, "David V."
Post by Topaz
No, men and women should have different roles.
Why?
No, they are not.

[a fools speech snipped.]
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-11 01:51:23 UTC
Permalink
A good movie that illustrates gender roles is Bourne Supremacy. The
two main characters are
Jason Bourne, a trained fighter and killer, and the lady who works for
the CIA. This lady is pretty
tough and always giving orders to males. She is not anything a man
would be interested in. There is
another woman who works as a counsellor for the hit men and she is
nice. She is what all men like.

The key point is the end of the movie. After Jason takes on the
whole world and shows that it
is the world that needs to be afraid of him, he calls the tough CIA
lady. And she softens up to him
and wants to spend time with him. I liked her then and most guys
would. Because they Identify
with Jason and not with the males that she was giving orders to. It
was because
she softened that she became lovable to men. And there was no chance
that she would soften to
any of the males she was giving orders to. She only softened for
Jason.

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 04:53:14 UTC
Permalink
A good movie that illustrates gender roles is....
Debbie does Dallas is about your speed.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
JimR
2005-02-11 13:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
A good movie that illustrates gender roles is....
Debbie does Dallas is about your speed.
--
Hey, I liked that movie . . .
Topaz
2005-02-12 01:26:27 UTC
Permalink
By Dr. William Pierce
http://www.natvan.com

"The Jews were very influential in Germany after the First World
War. They were strongly entrenched in the legal profession, in
banking,
in advertising and merchandising, in show business, in organized vice,
in publishing and other media. They were trying hard to change the
spirit of Germany. They were pushing modernism in art, music, and
literature. They were pushing for "diversity" and "tolerance." They
were
ridiculing German tradition and culture and morality and the German
sense of personal honor, trying hard to make young Germans believe
that
it was "cool" to be rootless and cosmopolitan. They were promoting the
same culture of lies that they have been promoting here.

That was the so-called "Weimar" period, because right after the First
World War some important government business, including the
ratification
of a new German constitution, took place in the city of Weimar. The
Jews
loved the Weimar period, but it was, in fact, the most degenerate
period
in Germany's history. The Jews, of course, didn't think of it as
degenerate. They thought of it as "modern" and "progressive" and
"cool."
Really, it was a very Jewish period, where lying was considered a
virtue. The Jews were riding high. Many books have been written by
Jews
in America about Weimar Germany, all praising it to the skies and
looking back on it with nostalgia. Even without the so-called
"Holocaust," they never have forgiven the Nazis for bringing an end to
the Weimar period.

There was a Hollywood film made 30 years ago, in 1972, about Weimar
Germany. The film was called Cabaret, and it starred Liza Minelli. It
depicted Berlin night life, with all its degeneracy, including the
flourishing of homosexuality, and also depicted the fight between the
communists and the Jews and the other proponents of modernism on the
one
hand and the Nazis on the other hand. The Hollywood filmmakers, of
course, were solidly on the side of the degenerates and portrayed the
Nazis as the bad guys, but this film is another example of the Jews
outsmarting themselves. The Jews who made the film saw everything from
their viewpoint, through their own eyes, and the degenerate Gentiles
under their spell also saw things from the Jewish viewpoint, but the
Jews apparently didn't stop to think -- or didn't care -- that a
normal,
healthy White person would view things differently. Check it out for
yourself. Cabaret is still available in video stores.

The point I am making is this: In the 1920s, after the First World
War,
the Jews were trying to do to Germany what they began doing to America
after the Second World War, in the 1960s. Many Germans, the healthiest
elements in Germany, resisted the Jews' efforts, just as many
Americans
have resisted the Jews' efforts in America. In Germany the Jews were a
bit premature. Although they had much of the media under their
control,
they didn't control all of the media. They tried to move too fast. The
healthiest Germans resisted and beat them.

In America, in the 1960s, the Jews had almost total media control
before
they began their big push, and they proceeded more carefully. In
America
they are winning. The culture of lies has prevailed in America. It's
still possible for Americans to win, but it's going to be a lot
tougher
this time. We'd better get started. The first step is to regain at
least
partial control of our media, so that we can begin contradicting the
lies. This American Dissident Voices broadcast is a part of that first
step."




www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
P.
2005-02-13 03:32:35 UTC
Permalink
A good movie ....
<ridiculous example snipped>

You really are full of shit! It's a movie made by the Jew-dominated hollywood
that you hate so much. If they are trying to control your mind, they are
obviously trying to make you think that men and women are different. You
should be thinking the opposite surely? You really need to read your own posts
once in a while, you may just embarass yourself into shutting the hell up.

P.
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God
who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them
to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
FreeThink
2005-02-09 13:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by FreeThink
I want to start a dialog with you Topaz so please don't attack me in
your response.
Post by Topaz
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism".
To some degree I think you are right. I don't think all
opportunities
Post by Topaz
Post by FreeThink
should or could be shared equally between men and women. Equal
opportunity for men and women seems obvious to me though. Do you favor
equality for women if the have to follow the same rules?
No, men and women should have different roles.
Post by FreeThink
Post by Topaz
This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
True. Sexual roles don't have much relevance to social roles though.
People do seem confused these days, however. I have a hard time finding
a woman who is traditional in her sexual role and also independent when
not having sex. It has to be just as hard for women who feel the same
way I do to find compatible men.
The best job for women is to be a mother. And this should be a paid
occupation with a paycheck from the state.
Post by FreeThink
I can think of a lot of things that are contrary to human nature.
Ussually, its the right that has a problem with them.
Are you really suggesting that a major motivation for bombing
Afganistan was feminism??
Yes
Post by FreeThink
They sell what the people want to pay for. You have it backwards. Stop
blaming institutions for your problems and start being responsible for
yourself. That is unless you really do think you are incapable of much.
If that is true please stop posting.
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
Post by FreeThink
Feminisim only means you beleive in equal opportunity for women.
White women should be mothers. And the more intelligent they are
Paul Craig Roberts
December 7, 2000
For whom the bells toll
There won't always be an England or a United States. Both are already
fading, not from military conquest but from their own immigration
policy.
Demographers have calculated that by the end of this century the
English
people will be a minority in their homeland. The English are not
having
enough children to reproduce themselves. In contrast, the "people of
color"
who have flooded into England have a high fertility rate. Non-whites
will
comprise a majority of the population of London in just nine years.
It is amazing how fast it is happening. Half a century ago, there were
only
a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the entirety of Great
Britain. In
another half century, there will be the beginnings of a black
government.
What will be the fate of the white minority after decades of being
demonized
as "white racists" by their own kind at Oxford, Cambridge and the
University
of London?
The English may be finished as a people, but they still have twice as
long
as American whites. Demographers predict that whites will comprise a
minority of the U.S. population by mid-century. It has already
happened in
California and in many cities.
Like the English, American whites are failing to reproduce. More than
42
percent of American women of childbearing age are childless. The
figure is
rising as gender quotas, and the breakdown of marriage and family pull
more
white women onto career paths that don't lead to children.
Examining the situation, the London Observer said that that this is
"the
first time in history that a major indigenous population has
voluntarily
become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease."
It is amazing that the two most important and powerful countries of
the past
two centuries have legislated their own path to extinction. But it is
astounding that it is occurring in the same two countries where
intellectuals prattle on endlessly about the need for diversity. There
are
many more non-white countries than white ones; yet, it is the white
ones
that are slated to disappear.
What's wrong with having an England? What a colorful and unique place!
What
character and genius! The cradle of the rule of law and
representative
Post by Topaz
democracy! The font of the scientific and technological revolutions!
It is
absurd to think these accomplishments are happenstance unrelated to
Englishness. Do we really need yet another black country, another
India, or
a mixture of the two? Why can't we keep England English for
diversity's
sake?
And the United States. What other country has such a strong sense of
right
and wrong, and such determination to see justice done all over the
world?
Who but the United States sends its treasure, not as tribute to the
powerful
but as gifts to the poor? What other country sends its troops to stop
genocides and wars in foreign lands? Central and South America are
full of
Hispanic populations. Do we really need another one here?
What is it that compels the United States and England to destroy
themselves
with an immigration policy designed to replace the indigenous
population
with different racial stock? In these two lands, agitators fight to
preserve
every wetlands weed, sand fly and snail darter. What's wrong with
preserving
England and America?
People had better give this some thought, because the decision won't
be
theirs to make for much longer.
The 21st century may bring the extinction of white populations.
Confined to
a small area of the world, white populations are everywhere in
decline.
Italy, once a fecund Catholic nation where a large family was
everything,
has such a low birth rate that its population is declining.
Everywhere
Post by Topaz
else
in Europe birth rates have fallen below replacement rates. European
governments open the borders to Third World immigrants in order to
keep a
tax base for the expensive social welfare systems that have crowded
children
out of the household budgets of the indigenous population. Canada,
also, is
well on her way to becoming a Third World country.
Russia, too, has a declining population reeling from the
environmental
Post by Topaz
and
economic destruction after 75 years of communist rule. Pressed on her
eastern and southern borders by Asiatic populations, Russia is slowly
retreating from her empire.
In the far Pacific, two island nations, New Zealand and Australia,
hang on
to an exported British culture. Perhaps they will be preserved, like
the
Galapagos Islands, as a place where creatures reside who have
disappeared
elsewhere.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Ok, thanks for responding. I ask that you rethink your belief system. I
am confident that fascism is not a good ideology.
Topaz
2005-02-09 23:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
Ok, thanks for responding. I ask that you rethink your belief system. I
am confident that fascism is not a good ideology.
Your only source of information is the Jewish controlled media:


There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:

"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.

"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"

"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."

"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."

"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."

"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."

"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."

"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."

"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."

"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."

"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."

" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."

"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."

"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."

"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-10 02:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Your only source of information is the Jewish controlled media: There was
a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their Own". It was a
pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood. ... <
So, if the Jews run Hollywood, and the banking system, and all that,
wouldn't that suggest that they are of superior "blood and race"? Why
aren't you worshipping them instead of Hitler?
Topaz
2005-02-11 00:12:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:33:06 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
Post by Marvin Edwards
So, if the Jews run Hollywood, and the banking system, and all that,
wouldn't that suggest that they are of superior "blood and race"? Why
aren't you worshipping them instead of Hitler?
"It is said that the Jews, at least the Ashkenazi Jews, have a
higher average IQ than Whites, at least Whites as loosely defined
by the designers of the IQ tests. [ <http://tinyurl.com/ihhe> ]
According to Professor Richard Lynn, writing in Personality and
Individual Differences on April 2d, 2003, the average verbal IQ
of American Jews is about 108, which, some people argue, might
explain the disproportionate number of Jews in certain positions.
[ <http://tinyurl.com/ihif> ] For example, although Jews are only
about 2 to 3% of the U.S. population, they constitute 23% of the
wealthiest Americans, 30% of the faculty at "elite" universities,
11% of Nobel Physics prizes, 60% of Yale graduate students, 60%
of "top Hollywood positions" (according to 60 Minutes), and 76%
of "most influential intellectuals" (according to Alan
Dershowitz).

It's in verbal IQ -- not mathematical or visuospatial ability --
that Jews excel, and, when you consider that the fast-talking,
quick-thinking sharpster or con man is almost a Jewish
stereotype, then common experience confirms the data. [
<http://tinyurl.com/ihje> ] This would mean that the Jewish
advantage would show itself mainly in areas like law, politics,
journalism, media, advertising, public relations, and other
fields in which verbal skills, persuasion, word-weaving, or
illusion-weaving are especially valuable. And that's what the
statistics indicate. Though Jews are overrepresented in physics
and math, they are far more overrepresented in Hollywood and law.
This is another case where our day-to-day experience perfectly
matches the science, and is essentially undeniable.

According to Professor Lynn, in the article cited above, we would
expect that the Jewish population would produce highly
intelligent individuals, with an IQ over 130, at a rate four
times higher than that of Whites. Even if we put the Jewish
percentage at 3% of the total population, that would mean that we
would expect that Jews would constitute some 12% of
high-achievers in the United States. But that isn't the case,
especially in areas well-known to be dominated by Jews. Instead
we see them at 76% of "influential intellectuals," 60% of
Hollywood executives, and 30% of "elite" college faculty. Why
this wild overrepresentation, far beyond what we'd expect based
on the IQ scores? [ <http://tinyurl.com/ihk2> ] Some have argued
that Jewish families are far more concerned than White families
about the academic and professional success of their offspring,
and concentrate far more of their time and energy and money on
making sure that their children succeed in school and go on to
the best careers possible. Others point out that Jews have a far
higher degree of group consciousness -- of racial identity --
than Whites, and that this intense ethnic identity makes Jews
willing and eager to put their group interests above other
interests, even individual economic interests. Thus Jews are more
willing to help their fellow Jews because they are Jews (which
experience tells us they do in so many different ways that it
boggles the mind) than Whites are willing to help their fellow
Whites because they are Whites (which happens far too seldom, and
which is socially unacceptable anyway -- even illegal -- in the
insane social and "moral" system which crafty Jews and decadent
Whites have imposed on us). So Jews will preferentially hire
other Jews; Jews will openly organize themselves to advance
Jewish interests; Jews will portray Jews as sympathetic
characters in their entertainment media; Jews will show Jewish
interests as morally right in their news media; and, most
importantly in my view, Jews will demonize any who oppose Jewish
interests or who promote White interests. All of these things
have an effect on the Jewish success rate in various fields, and
the last mentioned has a profound effect in making many Gentiles,
many Whites, act to promote Jewish success and Jewish interests
and also makes them, in many cases, act against their own
individual interests and their own racial interests. In fact,
Jewish influence has been paramount in constructing the 'liberal'
moral paradigm of the 20th century, which in effect says that
acting in the interest of White people and doing anything which
tends to support our continued existence in the world -- whether
opposing racial mixing or working for an exclusive living space
for Whites -- is "racism" and of course "racism" is the ultimate
in evil according to this Jewish-created "morality...'

Kevin Alfred Strom


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 01:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
"It is said that the Jews, at least the Ashkenazi Jews, have a
higher average IQ than Whites
That means that "Jews" are superior to "whites." How does it feel
to be a member of an inferior race?
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-11 02:19:46 UTC
Permalink
... It's in verbal IQ -- not mathematical or visuospatial ability -- that
Jews excel ... <
The odd thing is, that before blacks were allowed to play basketball with
whites, it was said that Jews seemed to have a natural talent for the game,
surpassing others. And I presume visio-spatial ability is an asset to the
game.
... and, when you consider that the fast-talking, quick-thinking
sharpster or con man is ... <
That would be Hitler. And perhaps you.
... common experience confirms the data. ... <
Your imagination "confirms" the data. Your desire to believe "confirms" the
data. What you will find in science is that ALL qualities of human
excellence, as well as depravity, are found in ALL races. And it really
doesn't matter if one race has an average IQ of 106. Because there are both
geniuses and retards in EVERY race.

And because the individuals within ANY race will vary considerably on any
scale you choose, it is really STUPID to presume that any individual
represents the WHOLE race or that the individuals making up that race are
ALL the SAME.

I think you'll find that the differences you are applying to race are more
likely due to culture.
Topaz
2005-02-12 01:28:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:19:46 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
Post by Marvin Edwards
The odd thing is, that before blacks were allowed to play basketball with
whites, it was said that Jews seemed to have a natural talent for the game,
surpassing others. And I presume visio-spatial ability is an asset to the
game.
... and, when you consider that the fast-talking, quick-thinking
sharpster or con man is ... <
That would be Hitler. And perhaps you.
... common experience confirms the data. ... <
Your imagination "confirms" the data. Your desire to believe "confirms" the
data. What you will find in science is that ALL qualities of human
excellence, as well as depravity, are found in ALL races. And it really
doesn't matter if one race has an average IQ of 106. Because there are both
geniuses and retards in EVERY race.
Whites are on average more intelligent than Blacks. That may not tell
us about an individual White
or Black but it is like the odds in dice.
If you roll two dice the chances of the total adding up to 7 are
one out of six. If you roll the dice only once that is only an
interesting curiosity. You don't know if they are going to add up to 7
or not. The odds are not an indicator of anything in the real world.
But lets say you roll the dice a thousand times. Then the number of
times they added up to 7 will be almost exactly one out of every six.
You can count on the odds to be a real indicator in the real world.
The question about Blacks is not "Do you like Black people?" Most
Whites like Blacks unless they have been in prison with Blacks or
something like that. We all work with Black people and we can see that
these Blacks are nice people. I am not so sure about the ones without
jobs. But I might be angry too if I were like that, and the media
encourages Blacks to blame their problems on the Whites.
So judging Blacks as individuals is not the question. This real
question is "Do you want to live in a Black neighborhood?" Whites who
have seen Black neighborhoods would answer "No" unless they have a
severe case of the mental disease known as liberalism. I live in a
nice White neighborhood. If I drive to where a lot of Black people are
I see run down buildings and buildings with metal bars over the
windows. It is the same thing all over America. In New York the bad
area is Harlem. When they say "inner city" they mean the Black area
and Whites don't want to be there, especially at night.
White nationalists are groups of White people who say that they
want to live in White neighborhoods. We don't wish any harm on the
Blacks and we hope the Black neighborhoods or nations will be as good
as they can be. But we are for preserving our race and our culture and
for having a nation for our people.
Post by Marvin Edwards
And because the individuals within ANY race will vary considerably on any
scale you choose, it is really STUPID to presume that any individual
represents the WHOLE race or that the individuals making up that race are
ALL the SAME.
I think you'll find that the differences you are applying to race are more
likely due to culture.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-12 03:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Whites are on average more intelligent than Blacks. ... <
Totally irrelevant. Persons of all races must have equal rights and be
treated with equal respect until that particular individual himself or
herself proves they need to be treated otherwise.
... White nationalists are groups of White people who say that they want
to live in White neighborhoods. <
That is a sickness. All of the differences you see between whites and blacks
were created by that sickness. The "ebonics" nonsense that came up about ten
years ago is not due to blacks having a different language. It was created
by whites segregating blacks into separate cultural enclaves. All of the
negative cultural signs, broken down neighborhoods, poor schools, crime,
etc. are the result of segregating blacks into separate cultures, and
suppressing those cultures through discrimination in education, economics,
and politics.
We don't wish any harm on the Blacks ... <
It's a little late for that junior. Your ancestors have already done the
deed.
Topaz
2005-02-12 18:18:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:37:58 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
Post by Marvin Edwards
Totally irrelevant. Persons of all races must have equal rights and be
treated with equal respect until that particular individual himself or
herself proves they need to be treated otherwise.
I am for treating people with respect. We should preserve the White
race.

"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at
the
Url below if ya want.
http://www.davidduke.com/

Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.

He said, lets look at Iceland. Iceland has no shipping lanes or
natural
resources, Yet they have one of the worlds lowest crime rates, and
have
some of the worlds highest test scores.


He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have
great
weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the world.
etc,
etc.

He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti &
Move
them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.

Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one
generation
Haiti would be paradise on earth.

He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the
Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech
and
hear it for yourself.."

Tommy
Post by Marvin Edwards
That is a sickness. All of the differences you see between whites and blacks
were created by that sickness. The "ebonics" nonsense that came up about ten
years ago is not due to blacks having a different language. It was created
by whites segregating blacks into separate cultural enclaves. All of the
negative cultural signs, broken down neighborhoods, poor schools, crime,
etc. are the result of segregating blacks into separate cultures, and
suppressing those cultures through discrimination in education, economics,
and politics.
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.

All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:

"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.

The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)

A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)

RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY

IQ

Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4

Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"

(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739

(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135

(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27

(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
Post by Marvin Edwards
It's a little late for that junior. Your ancestors have already done the
deed.
Forgotten Black Voices

American slaves had surprisingly positive things to say about slavery.

by Gedahlia Braun

From September-October, 1993, issue

On the subject of the treatment of American slaves, your readers may
be
interested to know that during the Depression someone had the idea of
sending people to the South to interview the last remaining blacks who
had
been slaves--all then in their 80s and 90s. Someone named George P.
Rawick
has compiled these narratives into a 19-volume collection called The
American Slave: A Composite Autobiography, which is published by
Greenwood
Press.

Several books have been based on these interviews, and a few years ago
I
read one called Before Freedom: 48 Oral Histories of Former North and
South
Carolina Slaves. It was edited by Belinda Hurmence, and published by
Mentor
(Penguin) in 1990. I recall that of these 48 interviews only two could
be
called hostile to former masters, slavery, or whites. Some were more
or less
neutral, but certainly the largest number expressed a positive
attitude
toward former owners and to slavery. Here are some excerpts:

Patsy Mitchner, age 84 when interviewed on July 2, 1937:

Before two years had passed after the surrender, there was two out of
every
three slaves who wished they was back with their marsters. The
marsters'
kindness to the nigger after the war is the cause of the nigger having
things today. There was a lot of love between marster and slave, and
there
is few of us that don't love the white folks today. . . .
Slavery was better for us than things is now, in some cases. Niggers
then
didn't have no responsibility; just work, obey, and eat.

Betty Cofer, age 81:

The rest of the family was all fine folks and good to me, but I loved
Miss
Ella better'n anyone or anything else in the world. She was the best
friend
I ever had. If I ever wanted for anything, I just asked her and she
give it
to me or got it for me somehow. . . . I done lived to see three
generations
of my white folks come and go and they're the finest folks on earth.

Adeline Johnson, age 93:

That was a happy time, with happy days. . . . I'll be satisfied to see
my
Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preach about. I
wants to
be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them and love
them,
and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time. That will be enough
heaven
for Adeline.

Mary Anderson, age 86:

I think slavery was a mighty good thing for Mother, Father, me and the
other
members of the family, and I cannot say anything but good for my old
marster
and missus, but I can only speak for those whose conditions I have
known
during slavery and since. For myself and them, I will say again,
slavery was
a mighty good thing.

Simuel Riddick, age 95:

"My white folks were fine people. . . . I haven't anything to say
against
slavery. My old folks put my clothes on me when I was a boy. They gave
me
shoes and stockings and put them on me when I was a little boy. I
loved
them, and I can't go against them in anything. There were things I did
not
like about slavery on some plantations, whupping and selling parents
and
children from each other, but I haven't much to say. I was treated
good.

Sylvia Cannon, age 85:

Things sure better long time ago then they be now. I know it. Colored
people
never had no debt to pay in slavery time. Never hear tell about no
colored
people been put in jail before freedom. Had more to eat and more to
wear
then, and had good clothes all the time 'cause white folks furnish
everything, everything. Had plenty peas, rice, hog meat, rabbit, fish,
and
such as that.

As I reflect on these interviews, they remind me of what I find now
among
non-Westernized Africans. They like and respect whites because,
generally
speaking, whites treat them better than their fellow blacks do.

In the introduction to this collection, the editor is at pains to
explain
all of these favorable statements about whites and slavery. The best
she can
do is to point out that these interviews were taken in the midst of
the
Depression and people must have looked back nostalgically to the past
when
blacks had food, clothing, housing, etc.

Even if this could explain the fond memories of the condition of
slavery, it
does not explain fond memories of white owners. What is especially
surprising is that after sifting through thousands of interviews, and
with
the clearly expressed liberal bias of the editor, there is still such
a
preponderance of positive expressions about whites and slavery. One is
bound
to conclude that this was at least a very common reaction if not
perhaps
even typical.

Dr. Braun has lived in Africa since 1976.

http://www.amren.com/braun.htm




www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-12 21:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by Marvin Edwards
Totally irrelevant. Persons of all races must have equal
rights and be treated with equal respect until that
particular individual himself or herself proves they need to
be treated otherwise.
I am for treating people with respect.
No you aren't.
Post by Topaz
We should preserve the White race.
There is no "white race".

The main question is why do you need to believe all these lies
you're repeating? Does it make you feel important? Do you get a
feeling of superiority by repeating what some find repulsive? Do
you feel accepted by the herd you've chosen to be with and
repeating such crap makes you look better in their eyes? You know
all this garbage you're spewing is not true, yet you do it
anyway. That presents a pretty interesting psychology going on
here. I think it has to do with herd hierarchy and self
empowerment gone bad.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-12 21:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Topaz
I am for treating people with respect.
No you aren't.
The Jews control your media and your mind:


There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:

"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.

"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"

"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."

"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."

"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."

"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."

"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."

"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."

"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."

"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."

"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."

" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."

"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."

"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."

"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Post by David V.
There is no "white race".
If there are no races then the unraced people who look like what we
used to call White people have much better countries and neighborhoods
than the unraced people who look like what we used to call Black
people.

Europe, the USA, and Canada, and Australia, and Japan are the
first world. Africa and India are the third world. In the middle, or
the second world are Egypt and China. The unraced people who appear
to be White are on average much more intelligent than the unraced
people who appear to be Black.

All IQ tests have proven that on average the former group scores
much higher that the latter. Unraced people who look like White people
invented cars, planes, and just about everything else important. Most
leftists admit that unraced people who look like White people on
average score higher on the tests. They have their excuses for it, but
all of their excuses are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.
Post by David V.
The main question is why do you need to believe all these lies
you're repeating? Does it make you feel important? Do you get a
feeling of superiority by repeating what some find repulsive? Do
you feel accepted by the herd you've chosen to be with and
repeating such crap makes you look better in their eyes? You know
all this garbage you're spewing is not true, yet you do it
anyway. That presents a pretty interesting psychology going on
here. I think it has to do with herd hierarchy and self
empowerment gone bad.
"Light on the Dark Continent"

"Eye-opening observations of an American who has lived in Africa
for nearly 20 years."

Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit (Self-Published) - Gedahlia Braun, 1993,

Reviewed by Jared Taylor, September-October, 1993

Dr. Braun has lived in Africa with only brief interruptions since 1976
and in South Africa since 1988. This book, in the form of a
chronological journal, describes how contact with the dark continent
quickly dispelled his liberal views and led to startling but plausible
conclusions that most Americans--even readers of AR--are likely to
find surprising.

Two Theses

Dr. Braun draws on his years of intimacy with Africans to support two
main conclusions:

The first is that virtually all Africans take it for granted that
whites are smarter than blacks. They haven't the slightest illusion
that they could have invented computers or built airplanes, and they
recognize that blacks and whites differ in moral and psychological
characteristics as well.

What is more, Africans are not the least offended by these
realizations. Unlike whites, they do not see any inherent immorality
in acknowledging racial differences. Some clever, westernized Africans
have discovered--just as American blacks have--that whites are
terrified at the thought of racial differences, and have learned to
manipulate this terror to their own advantage. But they, too, Dr.
Braun finds, can almost always be persuaded to acknowledge the
inherent limitations of Africans.

Dr. Braun's second thesis follows from the first: The vast majority of
South African blacks do not want black rule. They know from their own
experiences with black policemen and black bureaucrats that when
Africans are in positions of power they are corrupt, despotic, and
oppressive. Many blacks mouth the slogans of "liberation" but have
unrealistic, often ludicrous notions of what "liberation" is likely to
mean. Some, when pressed, will even admit that although they know
black rule would be a catastrophe for South Africa they pretend to
support it because they know that is what whites expect them to do.

Ultimately, as Dr. Braun recognizes, his observations illuminate the
terrible flaws in the white man. Without constant urging from liberal
whites, virtually all Africans would be content to put their fate in
the hands of a race that they recognize as smarter and more fair-
minded than their own.

Dr. Braun puts it this way:

(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society;

(2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not
for white liberals insisting otherwise;

(3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule
is in no one's interest, especially not blacks;

(4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black
rule.

On what does Dr. Braun base these heretical conclusions? After several
years in Africa, he began to realize that many blacks do not think the
way white liberals keep telling us they do. He then systematically
started asking Africans--even virtual strangers--what they thought
about racial differences and whether they were in favor of black rule.

Unlike most whites, who would be ashamed to ask such questions, Dr.
Braun is utterly uninhibited. He discovered that most blacks are eager
to talk frankly; most have never had an honest conversation with a
white about race and are charmed to find one who is not blinded by the
usual cliches. Just as interestingly, he quickly learned that even
whites who have lived all their lives in Africa--including journalists
and other liberals who claim to speak for Africans--have never had an
honest conversation with a black about race.

For the most part, blacks fear majority rule because they know they
are much more likely to be cheated, robbed or brutalized by other
blacks than by whites.

Many Africans believe, in so many words, that "Whites respect one
another but we don't."

Dr. Braun has concluded that blacks and whites differ as much morally
as they do mentally, and that these differences made economic
development impossible. He wonders whether one of the reasons large-
scale cooperative enterprise is nearly impossible throughout Africa is
that blacks do not trust each other and cannot be counted on to work
together for the benefit of all. He advances the provocative view that
Africans may not have an internalized moral sense but depend instead
on tribal authority to set rules of conduct:

Hence, when they were detribalized (by colonialism, etc.), these
external constraints disappeared; and since there never were any
internal constraints, we witness rampant lack of self-control amongst
detribalized blacks (crime, drugs, promiscuity, etc.). Where there has
been some substitute for tribal control--as in white-dominated South
Africa or the segregated American South--this behaviour was kept
within tolerable limits. But when such controls vanish (as in present-
day South Africa and in large U.S. cities), you get this phenomenon of
widespread unrestrained violence"

Dr. Braun has found that like American whites, most South African
whites are incapable of talking sensibly about race. Like American
whites, they now even take a perverse joy in applauding their own
dispossession. He describes the tempestuous enthusiasm of white
audiences for the anti-white South African movie "Cry Freedom," and
writes, "the positive joy with which they cheer their own demise is
quite amazing, isn't it?" He speculates that this joy stems from "a
fatal flaw in the white race: the capacity for self-flagellating,
exaggerated and unwarranted guilt and the self-hatred that seems to
underlie it."

This self-hatred is at the heart of the white man's increasing
insistence that he is a miserable racist who is to blame for the black
man's failures:

"Once blacks learn that whites think blacks have reason to hate them,
many will be happy to oblige, instinctively realizing their
psychological advantage as the injured party . . . . All in all a
tremendous con game, in which the white man is both instigator and
willing victim."

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-13 00:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by David V.
Post by Topaz
I am for treating people with respect.
No you aren't.
I don't believe everything I read and no one has told me (with
any success) what to say or think. It is obvious that you are the
one that is being controlled.
Post by Topaz
Post by David V.
There is no "white race".
If there are no races
There are no races. Your contrived differences are based on
ignorance backed by arrogance.
Post by Topaz
Post by David V.
The main question is why do you need to believe all these
lies you're repeating? Does it make you feel important? Do
you get a feeling of superiority by repeating what some find
repulsive? Do you feel accepted by the herd you've chosen
to be with and repeating such crap makes you look better in
their eyes? You know all this garbage you're spewing is not
true, yet you do it anyway. That presents a pretty
interesting psychology going on here. I think it has to do
with herd hierarchy and self empowerment gone bad.
"Light on the Dark Continent"....
Interesting..... you didn't answer any of my questions. Why
do you need to believe this stuff that obviously isn't true?
Could it be that you don't know yourself? It's like a drug
addiction for you, isn't it? A coping mechanism gone bad.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-13 20:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
I don't believe everything I read and no one has told me (with
any success) what to say or think. It is obvious that you are the
one that is being controlled.
Do you believe that Hitler was in favor of big lies?


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

"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsiblity for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had forseen and to save the nation from that hour
of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsiblity for the loss
of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the
weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be
likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to
justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true
in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in tha art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existance founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
Post by David V.
There are no races. Your contrived differences are based on
ignorance backed by arrogance.
Then why is there affirmative action?
Post by David V.
Interesting..... you didn't answer any of my questions. Why
do you need to believe this stuff that obviously isn't true?
Why do you ask loaded low class questions?
Post by David V.
Could it be that you don't know yourself? It's like a drug
addiction for you, isn't it? A coping mechanism gone bad.
Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:

"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
now mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that
seemed to always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with
peeling paint an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some
old holdouts in the neighborhood, they told me that the once rare
burglary, vandalism and assault had now become commonplace. The
diehard White remnants who remained had adapted to the changes and
found a way to endure each indignity and violation the best they
could. The change had been so gradual that they were no longer shocked
by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.
"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men
standing around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously
unknown White person trespassing in their neighborhood.
"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my
memories became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the
neighborhood. It seemed as though I had only been away a few scant
hours. Now those memories crashed against the images of the present
causing me to feel off balance. It was akin to visiting a healthy
friend and then after a few short weeks to see him wasting away with
cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection was more idealized than it
really was--as soon as I returned home, I ferreted out my old
photographs.
"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive
than I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often
accented with blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks
edged closely, and many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos
dotted the clean streets. Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and
Becky Thatcher-like bright faces of the children with whom I spent so
many happy hours of childhood.
"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets
yards and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry
teenagers, with scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and
crack in their pockets, menacing the streets where children now fear
to venture. A picture repeated, I believe, all over the United States
of America. For the current White residents of Gentilly Woods their
story is much like the story fo the frog that is put in a pot of warm
water while the temperature is slowly increased until the poor
creature is boiling and it is too late to save itself. Is the
traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water to realize
what is ahead?
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."

The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-14 00:26:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:57:19 -0800, "David V."
Post by David V.
I don't believe everything I read and no one has told me
(with any success) what to say or think. It is obvious that
you are the one that is being controlled.
Do you believe that Hitler was in favor of big lies?
There is no "belief" involved. I *KNOW* he was in favor of big
lies. He told many such lies. You seem ignorant enough to
believe them too.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-14 23:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:


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

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."

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

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Marvin Edwards
2005-02-12 23:08:29 UTC
Permalink
I am for treating people with respect. We should preserve the White race.
<
The characteristics of race are only skin deep. What we must preserve is
morality. Racism is immoral. It is a collection of prejudices which serve no
purpose other than to give one person a sense that he is better than someone
else. Your racism marks you as morally inferior to those who rise above such
unfounded presumptions. Anyone can pick and choose from the facts of history
to crucify any race. The white race is certainly no exception. But knowing
the nature of prejudice, how it is based in superstitiously held beliefs,
most intelligent and moral people reject it.
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up. ... <
I think we've had enough of your racist propaganda. I'm sorry that you have
made it such an important part of your nature, and I would hope that you
eventually get over it.
Topaz
2005-02-13 20:52:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:08:29 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
Post by Marvin Edwards
The characteristics of race are only skin deep.
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.

All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:

"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.

The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)

A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)

RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY

IQ

Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4

Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"

(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739

(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135

(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27

(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
Post by Marvin Edwards
What we must preserve is
morality.
That too.
Post by Marvin Edwards
Racism is immoral.
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)

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

by James Bronson
There once was a college freshman named George who thought he knew it
all.
One night over dinner, George got into an argument with his father.
The
argument began when the young student tried to explain to his father
that as
White people, they should be held accountable for all the evils that
they
had inflicted upon non-Whites througout history. George explained:
"Because
of European racism, we stole the Indians' land, we held blacks in
slavery,
we persecuted the Jews, and we plundered the environment. We've been
oppressive racists for thousands of years so it's only fair that we
pay
economic reparations for all the harm we've done to the world. I'm
pleased
to see that we are ending our political and economic domination of the
oppressed peoples."

George's dad was shocked to hear such talk. "Who put such commie-pinko
nonsense into your head, boy? Did one of your sandal-wearing hippie
college
professors teach you that?" the father asked.

To which the son replied: "That's the truth dad. My anthropology
professor,
Dr.Irving Silverstein, says so. He ought to know. Dr. Silverstein is a
well-respected Ph.D. People of your generation just don't understand
because
you were raised in a White supremacist racist society. That's why I've
come
to admire Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King as the greatest man in American
history. He stood up to the racists of your generation. Because of
him, my
generation of White kids is completely colorblind."

The father angrily replied: "That's bullshit! I've always been
fair-minded
and tolerant of people from all backgrounds and races. I haven't
'oppressed'
anybody, and furthermore there's nothing wrong with being proud of
one's own
people, including the European race of people. Your race is in your
blood.
It's like an extension of your biological family and you ought to be
proud
of your European heritage and identity, just like every other racial
group
in America is proud of its. Why is it OK for them to have a strong
sense of
racial identity but it's evil for us Europeans to feel that way?"

The young "intellectual" laughed at his father. "Come on dad, that's
the
kind of crap Hitler tried to peddle. Those racist attitudes were
discredited
years ago. There's only one race and that's the human race. Diversity
is our
greatest strength. Differences in so-called "race" are as
insignificant as
differences in belly buttons. And besides, UN statistics now show that
low
White birth rates, along with the fact that we live in an
multicultural
society, will mean that Europeans and their ethnocentrist and racist
culture
will have died out by the end of the century," young George said.

Turning red with anger, the father yelled: "You are a walking cliché
you
know that boy? And you think it's a good thing that the European
peoples of
the world will have faded out and ceased to exist?" Young George
replied; "I
think it's great! It will mean the end of racism and the end of hate.
The
oppressed peoples of the world would have been better off if us racist
Europeans had never existed to begin with."

Suddenly there was a blast of cold wind, an explosion, and a huge
smoke
cloud. When the smoke had settled, George found himself alone and lost
in a
cold open field. An angel named Clarence then appeared to him and said
"Well
George, you've got your wish."

George asked: "Where am I? What's going on here? And who are you?"

The angel answered, "George, I'm Clarence the Angel. I was sent here
to show
you what the world would have been like if Europeans, or Whites, had
never
existed. You now live in a world where Europeans never existed."

"Oh. That's cool. I'll have no problem adapting because there's not a
racist
bone in my body. And when I get back to my world, I'll be able to tell
my
professor and my friends how great this non-racist world was. Say, I'm
freezing my ass off out here. Where's the nearest motel?"

"Motel?" replied the angel. "There are no motels here in what was once
called North America. But there are some caves up in those mountains
where
you can find shelter."

"Caves? No way man. I want a nice warm bed to sleep in."

"I don't think you understand George. There are no buildings here in
non-white America because the evil Europeans never came here to build
them.
Whites never existed, remember? The natives live in tents. Would you
like to
go meet some local Indians? Perhaps they'll let you stay in a tent."

"A tent? But it's 10 degrees outside?...Oh well. It's better than a
cave I
suppose. Let's go talk to these Indians...... Wait a second, are these
Indians friendly or hostile?"

"Why, George, that's a racist question to ask. Just because some
Indians
were brutal savages who scalped their victims alive, it doesn't mean
they
all were" said the angel sarcastically.

"I know that Clarence. And I'm not a racist. I hate racism.
Nonetheless, I'd
feel safer if I could have a gun to defend myself if they turn out to
be
violent."

"Gun?" replied the angel. "There are no guns for you to defend
yourself
with. Firearms were invented by evil Europeans. Though we could make a
spear
with those twigs over there."

"That's too much work. Give me a telephone then. I'll call the Indians
to
ask if it's OK."

"Telephone"? replied the angel. There are no telephones here.
Alexander
Graham Bell was another evil white man, so he never existed. No
Europeans
remember?" "Forget it then" replied George. "I'll sleep in the damn
cave."

Upon arriving at the cave, a shivering George asked the angel for a
lighter
so that he could light a fire. "A lighter?" replied Clarence. "There
are no
lighters here, and no matches. Those are European gadgets and evil
Europeans
never existed remember? If you want to get warm, you need to do like
the
locals do and start rubbing twigs together."

"Oh come on man! You mean to tell me these people still rub sticks
together
for fire?"

"That's right George. The Indians live exactly as they did before the
evil
pilgrims arrived from Europe just a few centuries ago." said the angel
sarcastically.

"I refuse to stay in this cold cave and I damn sure ain't gonna light
a fire
with twigs, and I refuse to sleep in a teepee. I'll go to South
America. I
can make it in a warmer climate and I'll adapt quickly to the great
Incan
civilization I learned about at college. Since European racists like
Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed, the Incans will still be
there.
... I need a car"

"Car?" replied the angel. "There are no cars here. Daimler and Benz,
the
evil German inventors of the internal combustion engine, were never
born..nor was Henry Ford. There are no paved roads either. This is a
world
without evil Europeans remember?"

"No cars! Oh. I'll just have to take a train."

"There are no trains in this world either George. Evil Europeans
weren't
here to build locomotive engines or to discover the many uses of coal,
oil
and gas, or to build trains or lay tracks. But I'll allow you to cheat
just
a bit. Grab hold of my magic robe and we'll fly south."

George touched the angel's robe and they flew south until they arrived
in an
abandoned mud hut in the midst of Incan territory. George was grateful
for
the warm weather but it wasn't long until he began to complain about
the
heat and humidity.

"Clarence, this hut is a little shithole and I'm sweating up a storm
here.
Get me an air-conditioner please."

"Air-conditioner?" replied the angel. "There are no air-conditioners
here.
Air conditioning and refrigeration were inventions created by evil
White
men." "What?!! You mean to tell me that in the year 2002 these people
still
haven't figured out a way to keep themselves or their food cool? a
frustrated George asked.

"No George, they haven't. And they never will."

"This is ridiculous. Let's go to the main city to see the Emperor. I
can't
live like like this. Where's a car...oh I forget...no cars! Dammit
I'll
walk. let's go."

After walking through the jungle for about an hour or so, it began to
get
dark. George then asked Clarence to give him a flashlight so that he
could
see. "Flashlight? Sorry George, but Thomas Edison was an evil White
man
too...and he was never born. There are some branches over there if you
want
to make a torch."

"Never mind that!" George shouted back.

By morning time, Clarence and George had arrived at the temple of the
Incans. A bloody human sacrifice was in progress. George turned to
Clarence
and cried, "They're going to butcher that poor soul! Somebody has got
to
stop this. What horrible murdering beasts! Can't anyone stop them?"

The angel replied "I'm afraid not. Ritual killings are common place
here."Those evil European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro
never
existed so the Incans just continued their brutal ways. In fact, it
was the
oppressed peoples themselves who made up the bulk of the Spanish armed
forces. The people saw the Spaniards as liberators who would rid them
of the
oppressive Incan and Mayan rulers and give them a better life."

"I can't blame them for helping the Spaniards then. This is a horrible
place. Get me out of this shithole now!" said George.

'Where would you like to go?" Clarence replied.

George said: "Take me to Africa, maybe there's a more advanced and
humane
civilization there that I can fit into. Where the nearest airport?"

"Oh, I forgot...no Wright Brothers." George said. "How about a boat?"

"Boats?" replied the angel. "I'm afraid the most seaworthy rafts
available
to you won't be of much help in crossing the vast Atlantic Ocean. The
great
Viking sailors and European navigators never existed. No Phoenicians,
no
Leif Erikson, no Henry the Navigator, no Columbus, no Magellan, no
Hudson
and no Robert Fulton. Even if you could build your own ship, there
would be
no compass for you to navigate with and no sextant either. I'm afraid
you're
stuck here George."

"Can I touch your robe and fly to Africa then" asked George.

"You're cheating again George, but all right. Touch my robe and we'll
fly to
Africa."

When they arrived in Africa, George saw thousands of half-naked
African
tribesmen being herded along a dirt path. They were guarded by other
Africans with spears. "What are they doing to those poor men?" George
asked
Clarence.

"They are being enslaved by another tribe. Slavery was common in
Africa long
before the whites arrived." Clarence said."In fact, most of the slaves
who
were shipped to the Americas were sold to the slave traders by African
tribal leaders."

"That's so sad.' George said. "I want to meet Martin Luther King.
Since his
White assassin never existed, this great man should still be alive.
He's
probably a great tribal chief somewhere and leader of an advanced
civilization. He will free these slaves from their African masters.
Take me
to him Clarence."

Clarence led George to a little hut deep in the heart of Africa. The
naked
women and children looked at George in wonder. The young men were out
on a
hunt but the older men stayed behind. George was led to the dingy
little hut
of the tribal witchdocter and spiritual leader. There he saw a
wild-looking
man with a necklace of teeth around his neck and a huge ring pierced
through
his nose. "What the hell is that? George asked.

"Meet Witch-doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga" Clarence said. He never
became
Reverend Martin Luther King because there were no universities or
seminaries
built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create such
opportunities.
But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He specilaizes in
casting
evil spells. Perhaps he can help you?"

The witch doctor gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his
henchmen
to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed hold of George and tied
him to
a nearby tree.

"Stop it! Let me go. What are they going to do to me?" cried George
hysterically.

"They're going to perform a ritual killing on you George. The good
doctor
King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by cutting your heart out while
you are
still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to his tribe,"
laughed
Clarence.

"Clarence! Clarence! Help me Clarence! Help me!

"But George, you told me that you wanted to go to Africa and to meet
your
hero Reverend King."

George said: "This part of Africa has not developed yet. I can see
that now.
Take me to North Africa where Egypt and Carthage established great
civilizations. Just get me out of here, please."

Just as the witch doctor's spear was about to carve out George's
heart,
George vanished into thin air. He then found himself on the banks of
the
river Nile in Egypt.

"Thank you Clarence. Thank you," George said. "I don't understand it
Clarence. Why does so much of the world remain so brutal and
primitive? I
learned during Black History Month about many talented black inventors
and
scientists. Garrett Morgan, George Washington Carver, Benjamin
Banneker,
Granville Woods. Then there's Dr. Carson, the preeminent brain surgeon
in
all of America. Where are these men?"

Clarense replied: "Don't you understand yet? America, and Africa,
exist
exactly as they did before the Europeans discovered them. Civilization
as
you had known it had only been introduced to these people just a few
centuries ago by the Europeans. There are no universities, no
hospitals, no
means of transportation other than animals, no science, no medicine,
no
machines. In fact, the wheel hasn't even been discovered in
Sub-Saharan
Africa! Those black scientists, inventors, doctors, athletes, and
entertainers you speak of were never given the opportunity to realize
their
full human potential because Europeans weren't around to introduce
higher
civilization and learning to them. There are no George Washington
Carvers in
this non-European world, no Dr. Carsons, no Booker T. Washingtons, no
Benjamin Bannekers, no Michael Jordans, no Oprah Winfreys, no Bill
Cosbys,
no..."

"Stop it! That can't be!" cried George. "Let's walk over to the great
pyramids of Egypt right now and I'll show you one of the great wonders
of
the world .....built by non-Whites"

They walked a few miles before George stopped and asked where the
nearest
toilet was. "Toilets?" replied the angel. There are no toilets or
urinals in
this world. Plumbing was developed by evil Europeans. The people in
this
non-White world still relieve themselves in open fields."

Clarence turned around so George could do his business. "I need some
toilet
paper." George said.

"Toilet paper?" replied the angel. "There..."

"I know. I know. Toilet paper hasn't been invented yet. Just hand me a
rag
then".

Clarence obliged and the two of them went on their way.

"I don't understand. According to my recollections from Geography
class, the
great pyramids should be near this very spot. We ought to be able to
see
them from miles away," said George.

"Well, George, I'm sure your professors at the college never told you
this,
but the ancient Egyptians were not black or brown. They were
Caucasians. The
anthropologists who examined the Egyptian mummies confirmed this fact.
There
are no pyramids and no Sphinx either. And the Carthaginians were White
too."

George became depressed, but he was determined to prove his beliefs.
"What's
in Europe?" he asked.

"Europe became populated by Huns and other Asiatic tribes. They've
settled
down a bit but life is much the same as it is in North America. A
nomadic
existence based on hunting and food gathering. No great cities, no
science,
no buildings, no culture, no fine art - just a hard daily struggle
against
life and the elements of nature. In a Europe without evil Whites, the
Roman
Empire never existed nor did the Greeks. There was no Renaisance
either."

"Take me to Asia then. Surely the great civilizations of Persia,
India,
China, and Japan will suit me" George said. "Clarence, to the Taj
Mahal
please." "The Taj Mahal?" replied the angel. "Don't you know that the
ancient Persian and Indian civilizations were established by ancient
Indo-European tribes who crossed the Himalayas? They are the ones who
civilized India and built the Taj Mahal. Those are the great
civilizations
that Marco Polo, Columbus, and others were searching for.Did you know
that
Iran is Persian for "land of the Aryan?"

George said: "Don't tell me that the Indians were White men! That
can't be.
In the world I came from, I knew many Indians and they were not
White!"

Clarence explained: "As the centuries passed, the Indo-Europeans who
created
Indian civilization intermarried with the native majorities who
populated
the Indian subcontinent. Gradually there were less and less evil White
people until they faded out completely, along with the advanced
civilization
they had built. You will notice that there are still a few
white-skinned and
fair-haired Indians and Pakistanis around today -- in the world you
came
from that is.

George became worried. He knew he could never fit into the harsh
primitive
world he had been thrust into. Suddenly he thought of Japan. "Japan!
I'll
show you now Clarence. Take me to Japan. If the Japanese can make TVs
and
cameras then I'm sure I'll find a decent civilization that I can live
in."

Clarence transported George to Japan. George observed that Japanese
society
was the most orderly, advanced and civil that he had seen, but it
seemed as
if almost everyone was either a rice farmer, a fisherman, or a
soldier.
There were no cars, no skyscapers, no lights, no stereos, no sciences,
no
technologies, no universities. It was a stagnant agricultural society
that
seemed to have reached its high water mark and was incapable of moving
forward. George knew he could not live here either.

Clarence explained to Geeorge: "Even the industrious Japanese and
Chinese
peoples had to rely on the evil Europeans to build the modern Asia
that you
had in mind. In this world, Japan exists exactly as it did before
Commodore
Perry's American naval ships arrived in Japan in the 1850s. There's no
industry, no technology, no Fuji film, no Sony, no Hitachi, no
Panasonic, no
Toyota, no Sushi bars, no baseball...none of the trappings or comforts
of
modern life. These things don't exist in Japan or anywhere else
because
Europeans weren't there to create them and share them with the rest of
the
world. Would you care for a bowl of rice George?"

George began to feel sick in both his body and his mind. Not only was
he
depressed, but exposure to the harsh elements of nature had left him
physically ill. "Clarence, I seem to have contracted some type of
sickness.
I must have some anti-biotics."

"Anti-biotics? There's no...

"Oh Shut up already! Then just take me back to the world as it was!"

"Sorry George. I'm not authorized to do that. Only my boss can make
that
call." Clarence said to him: "You see George. Your father was right.
You
really had a wonderful race. Don't you see what a foolish mistake it
is to
be ashamed and guilty about your own people, and to let them die out?
This
is what the world would be like without the creative spark of Edison
and
Ford and Pasteur and Marconi. No great scientists, or mathematicians,
or
inventors or fine artists. No Archimedes, no Aristotle, no Socrates,
no
Alexander, no Renaissance, no Newton, no Kepler, no Goddard, no
Mendel, no
Tesla, no Faraday, no Guttenberg, no Shakespeare, no Dickens, no
Twain, no
Mozart, no Beethoven, no Da Vinci, no Michelangelo, no Galileo, no
Copernicus. No Venice, no Paris, no Lisbon, no Madrid, no Zurich, no
Berlin,
no St. Petersburg, no Budapest, no Rome, no Milan, no Vienna, no
London, no
New York, no Rio, no Sydney. No orchestras, no museums, no
universities, no
hospitals, no libraries, no theaters, no radio, no books, no
television, no
electricity, no refrigeration, no heating, no plumbing, no houses, no
steel,
no stadiums, no vaccines, no cars, no planes, no trains, no ships, no
dentists, no surgeons, no computers, no telephones, and most important
-
there's no creative genius to be found that could create and sustain
such a
high level of civilization. There's nothing for the people of this
world to
build upon. It's just a daily struggle for subsistence. A brutal
planet
where the few people who aren't mired in eternal ignorance and
darkness have
reached their peak of civilization and are advancing no further."

Clarence went on to lecture the broken and depressed young man for
seven
days straight. He covered everything. History, science, economics,
philosophy, art, literature, fine music, architecture, medicine,
politics,
agriculture, religion, and all the creations and contributions that
the
European peoples had made in every conceivable field of human
endeavor.
George listened closely to every word. He felt like a man who had been
reborn.

After his lecture, Clarence the Angel floated away towards heaven. "I
hope
you have found all this to be educational, and I hope you have learned
an
important lesson. Enjoy your world George!" mocked the departing
angel.

George began to sob like a baby. It was the year 2002 and he was alone
and
hungry in a backwards world where Europeans had never existed. He
cried out
to the stars: "Please God. I see what a fool I've been. I understand
now
what my father was trying to tell me. I want to go back to the world
that I
came from. A world where Europeans not only existed, but blessed the
rest of
humanity world with their unique creative ability. I want to live in a
civilized world. Please God!...take me back!...take me back!...Oh
God....please."

Suddenly George was transported back to his college dormitory. Drunk
with
joy, George jumped into the showers before he could even take his
clothes
off!.

"Warm water! and soap! Life is beautiful!" he screamed.

George's floormates looked at him as if he was crazy. "George! Have
you gone
crazy?" asked a bewildered schoolmate.

"No my friend. I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them!"
George replied. George then began to sing classic European folk songs
in the
shower. Miraculously, he was able to sing in many different languages.
He
sang O Sole Mio in Italian, Amazing Grace in English, Gloire
Immortelle in
French, Das Ist Der Tag in German, and also Belgian, Spanish and
French
ballads and waltzes. Tears of sheer joy began to stream down his
cheeks. The
degenerate music of Hip-Hop and Rap lost all of its appeal to young
George.

After his shower, George drove to a nearby restaurant and ordered two
whole
entrees. One was Lasagna and the other was a delicious Veal Marsala.
With
his Italian food he had a Greek salad with Spanish olives and Russian
dressing, drank a whole bottle of French wine, followed by a German
pastry
for dessert. He finished his meal off with a hot cup of English tea
and a
Cuban cigar.

George said out loud: "Oh those European peoples and their delicious
cuisine. Clarence was right after all. What a wonderful race!"

George was happy, but at the same time he realized there was much work
to be
done. He thought of all those poor whites in Rhodesia and South Africa
who
were being murdered and raped ever since they gave up control of those
once-European nations. He thought of the many thousands of qualified
Whites
who were passed up for good jobs and college entrance because of
racial
quotas that discriminate against Europeans. He thought about the
decling
birthrates among all the European nations of the world. He remembered
that
Europeans everywhere were dwindling in numbers every year even as
their own
nations were being flooded with third world immigration. He recalled
the
O.J. Simpson verdict and how millions of blacks in America cheered
when that
brutal double murderer was set free by a black jury after he stabbed
two
Whites to death. He remembered the Los Angeles riots of 1992, where
dozens
of Whites were dragged out of their vehicles and killed like dogs in
the
streets by packs of White-hating monsters who were never even
punished! He
remembered the time when Jesse Jackson led a cheer at Stanford
University:
"Hey Hey Ho Ho, Western Civ. has got to go!" His European blood began
to
boil in righteous indignation when he recalled how Jesse Jackson once
said
he had spit in White people's food when he was a young restaurant
worker.
George now understood that that his people were on a collision course
with
worldwide disaster and genocide. George realized that this great
people must
not perish from the face of the earth.

George could not wait to see his father. He longed to embrace him and
apologize for all of the foolish and disrespectful things he had said
to
him. But first, George had a score to settle with a certain college
professor. He walked into Dr. Silverstein's auditorium and quietly
took a
seat in the back row. The nasal voiced Silverstein was lecturing on
and on
about racial and gender inequalities in European-centered
civilizations. It
was vintage Silverstein. George's impressionable White schoolmates,
with
their baggy pants, hip-hop clothes and backwards baseball caps, were
swallowing Silverstein's poison pills hook, line and sinker. After
letting
Silverstein spew his cultural poison for about 15 minutes or so,
George
raised his hand so that he could give the profesor a piece of his
newly
educated mind.

"George? Is that you? I remember you from last semester. I wasn't
aware that
you were here today. I failed to recognize you in that shirt and tie,
and
without your earrings. You must have enjoyed my course so much that
you
signed up again eh? Class, I'd like for you to meet George. He was one
of my
brightest students last semester. He truly has a thorough grasp of the
ideas
presented in this course. George, would you be so kind as to tell my
class
about that brilliant term paper you wrote about European racism,
imperialism, and the need for monetary reparations?"

That's when young George let loose on the unsuspecting Professor.

"ENOUGH! You scheming devil! You mendacious fabricator of falsehoods!
You
pusillanimous purveyor of pinko propaganda! How dare you try to
corrupt and
manipulate our young minds when your filthy lies. We Europeans have
nothing
to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for, and everything to be proud
of.
And most of all, we don't owe anybody jack-shit - not one thin dime!
To the
contrary, it is the rest of humanity that owes us a debt which can
never be
repaid! We are the rightful heirs and protectors of a rich cultural
heritage. You vile manipulator! We are the sons of the Romans, the
sons of
the Greeks, the Celtics, the Vikings, the Normans, the Saxons. Why do
you
inflict shame and guilt upon us? We Europeans didn't just contribute
to
civilization...WE ARE CIVILIZATION! And I decare that I will no longer
tolerate you shithead "intellectuals" trying to tear our people down.
Never
again will we walk on eggshells when we speak, always fearing that we
might
be called "racist." I no longer care what people think. All that
matters is
the truth which you have sought to pervert!"

"What are you up to anyway? Why do you to corrupt my young peers by
shoving
false heroes down their throats. Enough of your Marxist games of
divide and
conquer, you commie pinko subversive! I don't want to learn anymore
about
Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Black History Month.
They
would not have amounted to anything without the institutions of high
civilization created by the European peoples. I'm going to set this
class
straight about who the truly great men of history are - the European
statesmen, scientists, explorers, monarchs, navigators, conquerors,
inventors, artists, writers, philosophers - the innovative giants of
history
that you and your ilk have erased from our collective memories. You
speak of
a world liberated from European influence? Permit me tell your
students
about such a world, Silverstein, because I can speak from personal
experience, you wretched little conspiring monster!"

Silverstein turned white as a ghost. He was shellshocked and rendered
speechless for the first time in his career! Never in all of his years
at
the University had a student dared to so boldly challenge his
falsehoods.
Speaking from the heart as well as the mind, and with an eloquence he
never
thought he could muster, George broke out into a 60-minute monologue
on
history, science, philosophy, culture, and all the other attributes
that
constitute high civilization. The young students were captivated by
George's
brilliant oratory. Many were moved to tears. By the end of his tirade,
George's reawakened classmates were thundering their approval of his
speech.
The class gave George a standing ovation and they thanked him for
helping
them rediscover and reclaim their own sense of pride and lost
identity. The
unstoppable power of truth had melted away years of Marxist guilt
tripping,
self hate, wimpishness and cultural brainwashing in just one
unforgettable
hour. The inspired students proceeded to storm out of Silverstein's
class,
throwing their hip-hop baseball caps and nose earings at him as they
stampeded out and vowed never to return. They lifted George up upon
their
shoulders and carried him out of the auditorium like a conquering
hero. With
a glint in his eye, George glanced up towards the sky, winked and said
"Thank you, Clarence."

Dr. Silverstein was left humiliated and visibly shaken. He knew that
these
reawakened European kids could never again be brainwashed with
"political
correctness" and White guilt. Silverstein's greatest fear was that
more of
these proud European youths would one day reawaken and take their
country
and civilization back from the Silversteins of the world.

Silverstein was worried, but he remained confident that most young men
and
women would never learn the truth about their glorious past and unique
creative abilties. After all, the mass media, Hollywood, the music
industry,
the colleges, and the public schools are all controlled by "liberals"
like
Dr. Silverstein. With the power of political correctness in their
hands,
they can continue to tear down our European ancesters, destroy our
institutions and traditions, instigate blacks and other races against
the
whites, flood America with third-world immigration, and push "hip-hop"
music, homosexuality, and other garbage onto a weak, confused and
morally
degenerate youth. After reflecting upon these facts, Silverstein
smiled a
devilish grin and muttered to himself: "A few of these European sheep
may
wake up to what's being done to them, but the majority of these idiots
never
will." And he smiled again....and laughed with diabolical Marxist
glee. Then
he repeated to himself "No...they will never figure it all out until
it's
too late."

Or will they?
Post by Marvin Edwards
I think we've had enough of your racist propaganda. I'm sorry that you have
made it such an important part of your nature, and I would hope that you
eventually get over it.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-10 03:21:00 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Feb 2005 05:12:56 -0800, "FreeThink"
Post by FreeThink
Ok, thanks for responding. I ask that you rethink your
belief system. I am confident that fascism is not a good
ideology.
Your only source of information is the Jewish controlled
Ah, your true nature is showing through.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
FreeThink
2005-02-10 07:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by FreeThink
Ok, thanks for responding. I ask that you rethink your belief
system. I
Post by Topaz
Post by FreeThink
am confident that fascism is not a good ideology.
Really? Where do I live?
Post by Topaz
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile
ownership
Post by Topaz
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish
advertising..."
Post by Topaz
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the
Washington
Post by Topaz
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the
personal
Post by Topaz
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Acme Diagnostics
2005-02-10 22:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
Post by FreeThink
Ok, thanks for responding. I ask that you rethink your belief
system. I am confident that fascism is not a good ideology.
Really? Where do I live?
Must be Israel if Jews control the media.

Larry
Topaz
2005-02-11 00:18:28 UTC
Permalink
On 10 Feb 2005 16:21:06 -0600, "Acme Diagnostics"
Post by Acme Diagnostics
Must be Israel if Jews control the media.
Compiled by Jeffrey Blankfort
12-6-4


MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.

JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner

NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News

JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC

DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News

SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.

MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.

RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)

MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS

DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS

JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS

DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS

SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment

LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment

BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.

SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.

BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.

PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV

MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."

ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.

WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."

RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post

JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.

ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.

STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.

DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."

DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund

KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker

BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment

KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.

TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.

MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL

WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner

JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment

JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2

SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment

GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment

STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks

LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment

JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment

MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"

DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"

HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America

AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures

JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations

ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications

BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment

IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications

WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition

LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live

TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter

PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host

MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes

BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20

MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review

BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week

DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of

CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post

HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek

WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle

PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,

RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets

MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations

DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.

BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.

ANDREW LACK, president of NBC

DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins

DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker

NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York

HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker

SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.

DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.

PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's

RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.

LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
2005-02-11 00:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
Really? Where do I live?
Someplace where the TV does not tell the truth.


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

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


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 01:34:20 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Feb 2005 23:13:50 -0800, "FreeThink"
Post by FreeThink
Really? Where do I live?
Someplace where the TV does not tell the truth.
You mean he doesn't live in fantasy land with you.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies.
Hitler told big lies. I guess that makes them even.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-11 01:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Hitler told big lies. I guess that makes them even.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:

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


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
xyz
2005-02-11 02:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by David V.
Hitler told big lies. I guess that makes them even.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
...what have the jews done to you?
Post by Topaz
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
2005-02-12 01:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyz
...what have the jews done to you?
Political Correctness.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-11 04:55:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:34:20 -0800, "David V."
Post by David V.
Hitler told big lies. I guess that makes them even.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies.
hitler told big lies. You just aren't bright enough to see it.

You do realize that the people in the newsgroups you're posting
to just see you as a nutcase. Not one takes you seriously.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-12 01:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Hitler told big truths.

Here are some quote from Mein Kampf:


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

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."

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

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-12 01:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Hitler told big truths.
He told no truths. That's why he's dead and the Jews are still
alive and well.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-12 03:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:

"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter
to Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan,
which if not checked by the combined action of the European powers,
would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of
that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities
of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for
some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia.
In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg,
etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar
convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just
frustated the onslaughts.

In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the
endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one,
however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the
full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the
mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world
Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National
Socialist Party of Germany.

Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact.
We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded
over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of
supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men
everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for
themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek
truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which
they cannot shirk.

To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer
idleness, if for no worse reason."


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
P.
2005-02-13 03:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies.
No-one has a monopoly on truth. EVERYONE tells lies, when it suits their
purpose.

P.
--
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God
who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them
to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen
FreeThink
2005-02-13 04:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by FreeThink
Really? Where do I live?
Someplace where the TV does not tell the truth.
I watch very little TV. I read my news online. There are also
newspapers. Have you ever read a newspaper? Facism and hate will lead
you to misery. Please reconsider.

Good Day Sir
Post by Topaz
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsiblity for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had forseen and to save the nation from that hour
of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsiblity for the loss
of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the
weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be
likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to
justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true
in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to
distort
Post by Topaz
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in tha art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existance founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Acme Diagnostics
2005-02-13 06:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
Post by Topaz
Post by FreeThink
Really? Where do I live?
Someplace where the TV does not tell the truth.
I watch very little TV. I read my news online. There are also
newspapers. Have you ever read a newspaper? Facism and hate will lead
you to misery. Please reconsider.
Good Day Sir
I once dated a girl who had a racist dad. This guy couldn't talk
for five minutes without harping on Jews this, Jews that.

I asked the girl if she knew why her dad was so racist. She
explained that it all started when a Jew was promoted at work
instead of him.

In this case, the racism was only a result of the man's personal
failings, but I also infer that it was greatly amplified by the
existing anit-Jew institution which allowed him to so easily
conclude that he hadn't failed, but the Jew somehow robbed him of
his promotion. I also infer that it doesn't take much to generate
such hatred since losing a job promotion isn't much.

Thus I infer that Jew-hating by itself begets Jew-hating with no
other cultural or substantive cause necessary.

Larry
xeno
2005-02-13 11:38:48 UTC
Permalink
I once dated a girl who had a racist dad. This guy couldn't talk for
five minutes without harping on Jews this, Jews that. I asked the girl
if she knew why her dad was so racist. She explained that it all started
when a Jew was promoted at work instead of him. In this case, the racism
was only a result of the man's personal failings, but I also infer that
it was greatly amplified by the existing anit-Jew institution which
allowed him to so easily conclude that he hadn't failed, but the Jew
somehow robbed him of his promotion. I also infer that it doesn't take
much to generate such hatred since losing a job promotion isn't much.
Losing a job promotion is a big deal if you've got all your eggs in one
basket, & most people do in some sense. & it sounds like he rather stew in
his pot than do something constructive about it. I knew an asshole who had
a lot of prejudices, who. IMO, got a way with a lot of shit because the
higher-ups really didn't give a damn who this guy hated or not. They only
got rid of him when he pissed off the wrong people & then they just put
him elsewhere in the company. It was practically a promotion. You see,
this guy kept his eye on the eight ball, & knew what pocket to put it in.
The people who make it in the business world are the go-getters.
Topaz
2005-02-13 20:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Here is a quote from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."


The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes
into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.

The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.

In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.

The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:

"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."

The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:

"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Roger Johansson
2005-02-14 03:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes
into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
There is a simple solution, abolish money.

Give everybody the same living standard, equal amounts of private
property, and let people work for free, or do what they like.

This solution would solve a lot of problems, like the problem of
individual freedom, all money problems, of course, lots of criminality
would become impossible or meaningless.

People would still be free to play on horses, or the lottery, you just
cannot win any money anymore.

People who like playing with money, like stock brokers, can play monopoly
with their friends.

The decisions in the society are taken through democracy. We don't need
rich guys telling us what to do.
--
Roger J.
David V.
2005-02-14 06:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Johansson
Give everybody the same living standard, equal amounts of
private property, and let people work for free, or do what
they like.
That would never work since no one would do any work. Everyone
would want to be the executive and no one would want to be the
ditch digger.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Roger Johansson
2005-02-14 07:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Roger Johansson
Give everybody the same living standard, equal amounts of
private property, and let people work for free, or do what they like.
That would never work since no one would do any work. Everyone
would want to be the executive and no one would want to be the
ditch digger.
Do you want us to keep capitalism so we can force people to do dirty and
dangerous work? That says something about the character of capitalism.
It is a control system, which controls and forces the population through
the monetary system.

Wouldn't it be better to abolish all dirty and dangerous workplaces?
And give every individual freedom to think for himself.

Under capitalism there are very small incentives to make workplaces
safer, cleaner and more interesting.

If you have to get people to work voluntarily you have to plan the work
in slightly different ways. And that is a very good thing.

By the way, the ditch digger in the modern world drive a computerized
and air conditioned machine, he doesn't need to get dirty.

If you want to "be a CEO" you will have to earn that position, by showing
the others at that workplace that you are the right person to handle the
work.

For example in a hospital, a doctor can get a lot of influence by knowing
a lot, so nurses and other doctors trust his judgement and ask him for
advice. He can suggest plans for the future like anybody else.
He can be a leader in situations where leadership is essential, if the
others want him to take the lead.

But when it comes to voting he has just one vote, just like everybody
else in the hospital.
--
Roger J.
David V.
2005-02-14 17:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Johansson
Post by David V.
Post by Roger Johansson
Give everybody the same living standard, equal amounts of
private property, and let people work for free, or do what
they like.
That would never work since no one would do any work.
Everyone would want to be the executive and no one would
want to be the ditch digger.
Do you want us to keep capitalism so we can force people to do
dirty and dangerous work?
So, it's only one way or the other? No grey areas? That's a
logical fallacy called Bifurcation.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-15 00:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Johansson
There is a simple solution, abolish money.
No, some system is needed for people to exchange their goods.
Post by Roger Johansson
Give everybody the same living standard, equal amounts of private
property, and let people work for free, or do what they like.
Bad idea.
Post by Roger Johansson
This solution would solve a lot of problems, like the problem of
individual freedom, all money problems, of course, lots of criminality
would become impossible or meaningless.
People would still be free to play on horses, or the lottery, you just
cannot win any money anymore.
People who like playing with money, like stock brokers, can play monopoly
with their friends.
I agree with you about the stock system.
Post by Roger Johansson
The decisions in the society are taken through democracy. We don't need
rich guys telling us what to do.
You are right that the money bags are in power, but they can
control the votes of the simple people who believe their TV's, and
that is the majority.

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Roger Johansson
2005-02-15 01:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
There is a simple solution, abolish money.
No, some system is needed for people to exchange their goods.
The money system has several serious flaws, which has led to enormous
amounts of human suffering.

We can easily design better distribution systems today, using computers
to regulate the flow of goods.
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
Give everybody the same living standard, equal amounts of private
property, and let people work for free, or do what they like.
Bad idea.
I have given lots of rational arguments to support my model, you have
not presented one argument against it.

Just calling it a bad idea doesn't count as an argument.
--
Roger J.
Topaz
2005-02-15 01:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Johansson
The money system has several serious flaws, which has led to enormous
amounts of human suffering.
The debt-money part is the flaw.
Post by Roger Johansson
We can easily design better distribution systems today, using computers
to regulate the flow of goods.
I have given lots of rational arguments to support my model, you have
not presented one argument against it.
Just calling it a bad idea doesn't count as an argument.
You said people should just do what they feel like and get
everything they want even if they don't feel like working. It's seems
that calling it a bad idea is sufficient.

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Roger Johansson
2005-02-15 02:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
You said people should just do what they feel like and get
everything they want even if they don't feel like working. It's seems
that calling it a bad idea is sufficient.
I never said people could have anything they want.
I said all people will have an equal share of the material resources.

Because it takes so much resources and creates so much trouble to
find out exactly what is "fair" in each individual case we will simply
give every body the same amount of property.

So we need no money system to indicate how much each person is worth,
because we will all have the same living standard, the same rights.

We can stop thinking about material stuff, status symbols, and such. We
can start using our lives for other purposes than just creating maximum
profit for some banker or shareholder.

May I explain how it can work in practice.
Already today we have a car register, where you get license plates for
your car. They have you registered as the rightful owner.

There is also a land and house property register in all countries, where
you can register yourself as owner of a piece of land you have bought.

We can use this system to limit the maximum of property each individual
is allowed to own.

In my system you can register, for free, any kind of property you want to
own, up to the maximum limit, which is the same for everybody.

You can be the owner of a house, an apartment, a car, a piece of land, a
boat, etc.. Choose any combination you like. Maybe you like very valuable
cars, so you get a Rolls-Royce and a tent.

Others may choose more conservatively and take a house, a car and a
sailing boat. When you want to change car, or house, you un-register the
old car/house, and register a new one.

The register computer does not allow more registering when you have used
up your whole quota. If you want something more you have to give
something back first.

This system will ensure equality and allow everybody to own their house,
apartment, cars, etc..

Stealing and robbery will be quite useless in such a society.
Even if you steal a car you cannot register yourself as the owner of the
car. There is no money to steal, and no property is for sale for
money.
--
Roger J.
Topaz
2005-02-16 23:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Johansson
Post by Topaz
You said people should just do what they feel like and get
everything they want even if they don't feel like working. It's seems
that calling it a bad idea is sufficient.
I never said people could have anything they want.
I said all people will have an equal share of the material resources.
There would be a lot more materials if everyone worked.
Post by Roger Johansson
Because it takes so much resources and creates so much trouble to
find out exactly what is "fair" in each individual case we will simply
give every body the same amount of property.
Then why would anyone bother going to college to learn to be a
doctor or do anything for that matter if they only get as much as
everyone else.
Post by Roger Johansson
So we need no money system to indicate how much each person is worth,
because we will all have the same living standard, the same rights.
We can stop thinking about material stuff, status symbols, and such. We
can start using our lives for other purposes than just creating maximum
profit for some banker or shareholder.
May I explain how it can work in practice.
Already today we have a car register, where you get license plates for
your car. They have you registered as the rightful owner.
There is also a land and house property register in all countries, where
you can register yourself as owner of a piece of land you have bought.
We can use this system to limit the maximum of property each individual
is allowed to own.
In my system you can register, for free, any kind of property you want to
own, up to the maximum limit, which is the same for everybody.
You can be the owner of a house, an apartment, a car, a piece of land, a
boat, etc.. Choose any combination you like. Maybe you like very valuable
cars, so you get a Rolls-Royce and a tent.
Others may choose more conservatively and take a house, a car and a
sailing boat. When you want to change car, or house, you un-register the
old car/house, and register a new one.
The register computer does not allow more registering when you have used
up your whole quota. If you want something more you have to give
something back first.
This system will ensure equality and allow everybody to own their house,
apartment, cars, etc..
Stealing and robbery will be quite useless in such a society.
Even if you steal a car you cannot register yourself as the owner of the
car. There is no money to steal, and no property is for sale for
money.
What kind of work would you do and how many hours a week?
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Roger Johansson
2005-02-17 01:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
I never said people could have anything they want.
I said all people will have an equal share of the material resources.
There would be a lot more materials if everyone worked.
How do you suggest we would force them to work then?
With whips and guns? Or do we take control of their production and
distribution of the necessities of life, and blackmail them. If you dont
work, you don't eat.? We could even teach them that saying as a good
worker's moral. Then they will keep a check on each other.

We are actually living in a world of enough resources to feed and clothe
all of us, and we do not need the participation of everybody. It is
enough that 30% do useful things.

And what is useful, by the way, and who is going to judge what is and
what isn't useful, or nice.

30 years ago the swedish youth ware working like good boys, most of them.
A few longhaird guys just smoked pot and played rock on their guitars.
Nobody would have said that they were useful, or even nice.
Today they are the third biggest export industry in sweden, they make as
much money for the country as all the saw mills and paper mills put
together.

Please consider that in the present capitalist society around half the
work force are busy counting money, checking sums of money, printing out
bills, writing checks, get the payment from a client, etc..

So we are actually only using half the work force today, for real
material production.

If we give everybody the same right to property and consumption there is
no longer any need to administrate a gigantic monetary system to make
sure everybody get what they are worth.

In my system everybody have the same value, in material standard. That is
very easy to administrate and check.

We can stop thinking about material stuff all the time, like wages,
prices, interest rates, cars, houses, expensive gifts, etc.. There are
more important and interesting stuff to think about. You can actually
have more fun than watching sports and violent movies.
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
Because it takes so much resources and creates so much trouble to
find out exactly what is "fair" in each individual case we will simply
give every body the same amount of property.
Then why would anyone bother going to college to learn to be a
doctor or do anything for that matter if they only get as much as
everyone else.
Very few people become doctors to become rich. It takes 20 years of
intensive studies before you're a doctor, and you will continue to study
for the rest of your life. You will have the responsibility for life and
death every day of your work. You will work 50-70 hours per week for the
rest of your career.

For people who want to make money thee are a lot easier ways to get them,
like starting a pizzeria.
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
So we need no money system to indicate how much each person is worth,
because we will all have the same living standard, the same rights.
We can stop thinking about material stuff, status symbols, and such. We
can start using our lives for other purposes than just creating maximum
profit for some banker or shareholder.
May I explain how it can work in practice.
Already today we have a car register, where you get license plates for
your car. They have you registered as the rightful owner.
There is also a land and house property register in all countries,
where you can register yourself as owner of a piece of land you have
bought.
We can use this system to limit the maximum of property each individual
is allowed to own.
In my system you can register, for free, any kind of property you want
to own, up to the maximum limit, which is the same for everybody.
You can be the owner of a house, an apartment, a car, a piece of land,
a boat, etc.. Choose any combination you like. Maybe you like very
valuable cars, so you get a Rolls-Royce and a tent.
Others may choose more conservatively and take a house, a car and a
sailing boat. When you want to change car, or house, you un-register
the old car/house, and register a new one.
The register computer does not allow more registering when you have
used up your whole quota. If you want something more you have to give
something back first.
This system will ensure equality and allow everybody to own their
house, apartment, cars, etc..
Stealing and robbery will be quite useless in such a society.
Even if you steal a car you cannot register yourself as the owner of
the car. There is no money to steal, and no property is for sale for
money.
What kind of work would you do and how many hours a week?
You already know who I am, and what my work is.

Hasn't made me rich yet :-)
--
Roger J.
Topaz
2005-02-18 01:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Johansson
How do you suggest we would force them to work then?
That is how it is now if we want to pay the rent.
Post by Roger Johansson
With whips and guns? Or do we take control of their production and
distribution of the necessities of life, and blackmail them. If you dont
work, you don't eat.? We could even teach them that saying as a good
worker's moral. Then they will keep a check on each other.
We are actually living in a world of enough resources to feed and clothe
all of us, and we do not need the participation of everybody. It is
enough that 30% do useful things.
We might want to have a lot more than just the necessities. And if
do we want a reduction in work we should all work three hours instead
of eight, or make the weekends five days and the workdays two.
Your plan is not fair.
Post by Roger Johansson
And what is useful, by the way, and who is going to judge what is and
what isn't useful, or nice.
If someone buys your stuff or gives you a paycheck it is useful.
Post by Roger Johansson
30 years ago the swedish youth ware working like good boys, most of them.
A few longhaird guys just smoked pot and played rock on their guitars.
Nobody would have said that they were useful, or even nice.
Today they are the third biggest export industry in sweden, they make as
much money for the country as all the saw mills and paper mills put
together.
Music is important.
Post by Roger Johansson
Please consider that in the present capitalist society around half the
work force are busy counting money, checking sums of money, printing out
bills, writing checks, get the payment from a client, etc..
Almost all of that could be done by computers.
Post by Roger Johansson
So we are actually only using half the work force today, for real
material production.
If we give everybody the same right to property and consumption there is
no longer any need to administrate a gigantic monetary system to make
sure everybody get what they are worth.
Suppose you are on an island with two other people and it had your
system. You did all the farm work and everything because your two
freinds decided they would rather play all day. It isn't fair.
Post by Roger Johansson
In my system everybody have the same value, in material standard. That is
very easy to administrate and check.
We can stop thinking about material stuff all the time, like wages,
prices, interest rates, cars, houses, expensive gifts, etc.. There are
more important and interesting stuff to think about. You can actually
have more fun than watching sports and violent movies.
Very few people become doctors to become rich. It takes 20 years of
intensive studies before you're a doctor, and you will continue to study
for the rest of your life. You will have the responsibility for life and
death every day of your work. You will work 50-70 hours per week for the
rest of your career.
For people who want to make money thee are a lot easier ways to get them,
like starting a pizzeria.
In your system they could get just as much by not starting the
pizzeria so why bother.
Post by Roger Johansson
You already know who I am, and what my work is.
Hasn't made me rich yet :-)
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Roger Johansson
2005-02-18 02:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
We are actually living in a world of enough resources to feed and
clothe all of us, and we do not need the participation of everybody. It
is enough that 30% do useful things.
We might want to have a lot more than just the necessities.
If you want more resources you just help creating more resources, you
will get your fair share, exactly as much as everybody else.

If you want more that other people I can't help you. Find some more
unfair program to vote for if you don't like this kind of fairness.
Post by Topaz
And if
do we want a reduction in work we should all work three hours instead
of eight, or make the weekends five days and the workdays two.
Your plan is not fair.
Every person can decide for him/herself what to do, every day. If you
feel like going fishing, or just sleep, you can do it.

We are sure that enough people will want to help voluntarily so the society will
work.

As I said, a lot of people are not working in a really productive way in
the current system, at least half the workforce is administrating the
system.
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
30 years ago the swedish youth ware working like good boys, most of
them. A few longhaird guys just smoked pot and played rock on their
guitars. Nobody would have said that they were useful, or even nice.
Today they are the third biggest export industry in sweden, they make
as much money for the country as all the saw mills and paper mills put
together.
Music is important.
The point is that 30 years ago nobody could foresee what would become
very profitable in the future. If we had had a more strict control system
these hippies would have been forced to cut their hair, work every day,
and no electric guitars.

So we have to allow a lot of individual freedom to people, so a thousand
flowers can bloom, as some fat guy said, floating down the yellow river.

The money system is a control system which forces people to do things
other people want, not what they themselves want. Abolishing money will
free the individual to think for himself and to go where he likes.
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
Please consider that in the present capitalist society around half the
work force are busy counting money, checking sums of money, printing
out bills, writing checks, get the payment from a client, etc..
Almost all of that could be done by computers.
You are so right.

And I have written the rules and the program for those computers, to make
life as simple and nice as possible for everybody, that is what I am
talking about.
Post by Topaz
Post by Roger Johansson
So we are actually only using half the work force today, for real
material production.
If we give everybody the same right to property and consumption there
is no longer any need to administrate a gigantic monetary system to
make sure everybody get what they are worth.
Suppose you are on an island with two other people and it had your
system. You did all the farm work and everything because your two
freinds decided they would rather play all day. It isn't fair.
If we had enough food for all three of us when only I work with the crop?

It would be okay for me. If I like that work.

But your example is not a good example. 3 people on an island sounds more
like an emergency than a working society.
--
Roger J.
Topaz
2005-02-13 20:56:37 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Feb 2005 00:12:22 -0600, "Acme Diagnostics"
Post by Acme Diagnostics
I once dated a girl who had a racist dad. This guy couldn't talk
for five minutes without harping on Jews this, Jews that.
I asked the girl if she knew why her dad was so racist. She
explained that it all started when a Jew was promoted at work
instead of him.
In this case, the racism was only a result of the man's personal
failings, but I also infer that it was greatly amplified by the
existing anit-Jew institution which allowed him to so easily
conclude that he hadn't failed, but the Jew somehow robbed him of
his promotion. I also infer that it doesn't take much to generate
such hatred since losing a job promotion isn't much.
Thus I infer that Jew-hating by itself begets Jew-hating with no
other cultural or substantive cause necessary.
Exposing the Real Racists

Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book

Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003

----------------------------------------------------------
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been
sold worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian
Duma (parliament).
----------------------------------------------------------

In 1905, a new book was catalogued in the British Library. Its title
was The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and it claimed to be
the secret minutes of Jewish elitists who planned to dominate the
world. Most authorities now view The Protocols of Zion as an elaborate
forgery concocted by agents of the Russian Czar.

Over the last century since the book's release, thousands of other
books have been written on what is called the 'Jewish Question'. The
vast majority of them defend the Jewish people from the forces of
'Anti-Semitism', yet still the best selling book on the Jews since
1905 has been The Protocols, which has been published in most of the
world's languages. According to prominent Jewish leaders in Russia,
the popularity of 'The Protocols' has now been eclipsed by a new book
titled Jewish Supremacism. Unlike The Protocols, this book is no
forgery, for its author is proud of his work. He is the controversial
American politician David Duke, a former member of the Louisiana House
of Representatives.

Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.

If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.

FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH

In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr. Richard
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-

'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-
separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative years... I
attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign
flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a foreign
national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught the
superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.

'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'

This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.

Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.

Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.

In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.

Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.

Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.

Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.

SMEARS BACKFIRED

Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.

David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.

When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!

David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.

ABSOLVES SOME JEWS

The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.

Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.

How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an 'anti-
Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In very
effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called 'anti-
Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or 'anti-
Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem sects.
But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important leaders
of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well wind up
in prison for 'hate speech'.

One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.

While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.

INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT

In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled 'anti-
Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define that
term.

In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.

Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-

'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'

With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.

ON ISRAELI TERROR

Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.

Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.

Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.

In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.

It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.

After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Topaz
2005-02-13 20:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreeThink
I watch very little TV. I read my news online. There are also
newspapers. Have you ever read a newspaper? Facism and hate will lead
you to misery. Please reconsider.
Good Day Sir
Why They Hate Us
by Joseph Sobran

Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so
large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western
exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the
world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western
power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have
disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel
not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they
don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white
man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't
conscious of it. And superiority excites envy. Destroying
white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of
designated victims we call 'minorities.'

From Sobran's Newsletter, April 1997
Post by FreeThink
Post by Topaz
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler
was
Post by Topaz
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsiblity for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had forseen and to save the nation from that
hour
Post by Topaz
of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsiblity for the
loss
Post by Topaz
of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the
weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be
likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to
justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true
in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of
credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more
easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than
consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of
their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the
Post by Topaz
small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to
distort
Post by Topaz
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after
it
Post by Topaz
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in tha art of lying.
These
Post by Topaz
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existance founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly
and
Post by Topaz
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do
not
Post by Topaz
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping
Truth
Post by Topaz
to prevail."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-14 00:27:12 UTC
Permalink
On 12 Feb 2005 20:10:13 -0800, "FreeThink"
Post by FreeThink
I watch very little TV. I read my news online. There are
also newspapers. Have you ever read a newspaper? Facism and
hate will lead you to misery. Please reconsider.
Good Day Sir
Why They Hate Us.....
Hate is what you guys do. We pity you but don't hate you.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-15 00:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Hate is what you guys do. We pity you but don't hate you.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.


A large amount of what has been written about
Hitler and Nazi Germany has
been particularly subject to the pressure of political
correctness: a good
example is the story of 1936 Olympics and the Black
American athlete Jesse
Owens."

Here is an excerpt from a book my friend fished out of
the Internet:

The 1936 Olympics

The story most repeated about Hitler and the 1936
Olympic Games in Berlin,
which were unquestionably put on as a political
showcase for Nazi Germany,
is that Hitler refused to shake the hand of the
American Black athlete
Jesse Owens after the latter had won a race.

In reality what happened was that Hitler personally
attended the first day
of the track and field competition on 2 August 1936,
and did personally
congratulate the German athlete Hans Woellke, who
became the first German
to win a gold medal in the Olympics since 1896.

Throughout the rest of the day, Hitler continued to
receive Olympic
champions, German and non-German, in his VIP box.

The next day, 3 August, the chairman of the
International Olympic
Committee, Comte Baillet-Latour, approached Hitler
early in the morning and
told the German leader that he had violated Olympic
protocol by having
winners paraded to his box.

Hitler apologized and gave an undertaking that he
would from then on
refrain from publicly congratulating any winners,
German or otherwise.
During this day, Owens won his gold medals - and in
line with the Olympic
Committee's ruling, Hitler did not shake his hand, or
anybody else's for
that matter, at the games again.

It is therefore utterly false to claim that Hitler
deliberately chose to
ignore Owens. In fact, in the very autobiography that
the Encarta
Encyclopedia extract refers to, The Jesse Owens Story,
Owens himself
recounted how Hitler had stood up and waved to him:

"When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand
at me, and I waved
back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in
criticizing the man of
the hour in Germany."

Another common story about the 1936 Olynpic games is
that Owens' victory
"disproved the Nazi master race theory" - in fact the
Olympic games as a
whole were won by the German team with 89 medals,
compared to the 56 medals
won by the second placed USA team.

In what was to become an act of extreme irony, the
American president of
the time, Franklin D. Roosevelt, then involved in an
election and concerned
about the reaction in the USA's southern states,
refused to see Owens at
the White House: Owens was later to remark that it was
Roosevelt, not
Hitler, who snubbed him.

=====

Thought for the Day:

"It's interesting to see a photo of the French
contingent entering the
Olympic arena behind the French flag, and every one of
them is giving
Hitler's private box the National Socialist salute."

(Letter to the Zundelsite)


____Information about Ingrid Rimland's historical
trilogy, "Lebensraum!",
seized at the Canadian border for being "politically
incorrect", may be
found at: http://www.lebensraum.org/ir.html



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-15 01:25:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:27:12 -0800, "David V."
Post by David V.
Hate is what you guys do. We pity you but don't hate you.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know
is a lie.
That you actually believe that is why we pity you.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-16 23:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
That you actually believe that is why we pity you.
Compiled by Jeffrey Blankfort
12-6-4


MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.

JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner

NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News

JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC

DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News

SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.

MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.

RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)

MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS

DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS

JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS

DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS

SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment

LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment

BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.

SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.

BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.

PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV

MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."

ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.

WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."

RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post

JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.

ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.

STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.

DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."

DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund

KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker

BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment

KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.

TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.

MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL

WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner

JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment

JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2

SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment

GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment

STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks

LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment

JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment

MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"

DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"

HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America

AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures

JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations

ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications

BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment

IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications

WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition

LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live

TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter

PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host

MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes

BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20

MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review

BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week

DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of

CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post

HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek

WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle

PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,

RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets

MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations

DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.

BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.

ANDREW LACK, president of NBC

DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins

DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker

NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York

HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker

SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.

DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.

PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's

RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.

LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-17 01:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by David V.
That you actually believe that is why we pity you.
Compiled by Jeffrey Blankfort
We still pity you.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-18 01:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

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

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."

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

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
David V.
2005-02-18 03:27:19 UTC
Permalink
We still pity you.
--
Dave

....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Topaz
2005-02-19 00:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Exposing the Real Racists

Edgar Johnston, PhD. reviews an important new book

Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. Published by Free Speech Press, 2003

----------------------------------------------------------
More than 500,000 copies of 'Jewish Supremacism' have been
sold worldwide. It is even sold within the Russian
Duma (parliament).
----------------------------------------------------------

In 1905, a new book was catalogued in the British Library. Its title
was The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and it claimed to be
the secret minutes of Jewish elitists who planned to dominate the
world. Most authorities now view The Protocols of Zion as an elaborate
forgery concocted by agents of the Russian Czar.

Over the last century since the book's release, thousands of other
books have been written on what is called the 'Jewish Question'. The
vast majority of them defend the Jewish people from the forces of
'Anti-Semitism', yet still the best selling book on the Jews since
1905 has been The Protocols, which has been published in most of the
world's languages. According to prominent Jewish leaders in Russia,
the popularity of 'The Protocols' has now been eclipsed by a new book
titled Jewish Supremacism. Unlike The Protocols, this book is no
forgery, for its author is proud of his work. He is the controversial
American politician David Duke, a former member of the Louisiana House
of Representatives.

Jewish leaders are extremely fearful of this book. I can illustrate
the cause of their concern by giving an example of David Duke's
technique in exposing what he calls Jewish supremacism.

If any prominent political person in the Western World publicly
announced that Jews are frequently disloyal to nations where they live
and that they view Gentiles as racially inferior, he would face
excoriation as an 'anti-Semite'. Probably, he would be driven from
office. Duke has no need to make such claims, for he simply quotes
very prominent and powerful Jews who make his point for him.

FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH

In the first few pages of Jewish Supremacism, Duke quotes Dr. Richard
Steinlight, a former head of National Affairs for the largest Jewish
organisation in the United States. Here is the quotation taken from a
2001 magazine article written by Dr. Steinlight:-

'I'll confess it at least, like thousands of other typical kids of my
generation I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-
separatist. Every summer for two months of ten formative years... I
attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign
flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colours, sang a foreign
national anthem, learned a foreign language... and was taught the
superiority of my people to the 'Gentiles' who oppressed us.

'We were taught to view non-Jews as... people less sensitive,
intelligent and moral than ourselves.'

This method of quoting major Jewish figures and sources is used
hundreds of times in Duke's book to advance his thesis that there is a
powerful Jewish supremacist element in Judaism and Zionism that
threatens not only the freedom of the Palestinian people but all
nations, including the United States.

Duke also uses direct quotes from the Talmud and other major Jewish
sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia to expose a long-standing
cadre of hateful, anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists. Shocking quotes
are displayed from major Jewish magazines that boast of a Jewish
supremacy over the media and politics of the United States. He finds
disturbing and hateful words from Jewish leaders, such as Ariel
Sharon, which openly support genocide, and he reveals quotations from
Israeli leaders who equate Zionism and Nazism. Of course, he also
cites many prominent Gentiles of historical and contemporary times,
but the Jewish quotations and sources have the greatest power.
Frankly, they are so convincing that Jewish leaders have sought to get
the book banned in many nations.

Interestingly, Jewish Supremacism was published first in Russia, the
same nation that gave birth to The Protocols of Zion. In 2000 it
quickly became a best seller throughout the entirety of the former
Eastern bloc. It even sells briskly in the corridors of the Russian
Duma (Parliament) and has prompted Levinsky, Goldman and other leading
Jews to seek its ban under old Soviet laws forbidding 'anti-Semitism'.

In the Autumn of 2000, Levinsky and others filed a formal complaint to
the Russian Prosecutor General and asked for the book to be classified
as anti-Semitic and thus illegal. After a year of close examination
(they painstakingly verified all 669 of the documentations), the
Russian Government shocked the Jewish community by officially
declaring that the book is not anti-Semitic. Jewish members of the
Duma then introduced new legislation aimed at outlawing 'Jewish
Supremacism', but it failed by a few votes.

Since then, the book has been sold in thousands of street corners
across the breadth of the Russian Federation and has now topped an
incredible 500,000 in print.

Translated into most of the Eastern European languages, the book has
won Duke many academic awards for its scholarship, including an
honorary Doctorate awarded by President's University, the second
largest university in the nation of Ukraine.

Subsequently the university itself published a best-selling Ukrainian
edition. In May of 2003, Free Speech Press published the English
version of Jewish Supremacism, accompanied by a storm of interest and
controversy. Jewish leaders are horrified that it is well on its way
to becoming the best-read book in the world on Zionism.

SMEARS BACKFIRED

Although Zionist organisations have tried to use Duke's media
characterisation as a 'white supremacist' to discredit his book, so
far their exploitation of his early-life involvement in a KKK group
has only backfired by making the book and its author more newsworthy.
Attacks by the ADL and other pro-Zionist groups have led to
sensationalist news coverage, causing even greater interest and
confounding those who desperately wanted Duke's book to die a quiet
death.

David Duke decries the label of white supremacist and says that while
he certainly desires the preservation of his own heritage he seeks no
supremacy over others. He maintains that those who scream most
hatefully against him are themselves guilty of the most extreme and
powerful supremacism on earth: Jewish supremacism.

When Duke lectured in some Persian Gulf nations last year, Zionist
leaders attempted to undercut his support by allegations of 'racism'.
Those organised efforts had little affect on the overflow, mixed-race
audiences that cheered almost his every word. As a former university
professor and a writer who has lectured occasionally on behalf of the
people of Palestine, I approached David Duke's book out of a curiosity
elicited by the intense Zionist efforts to suppress it. Actually, I
had readily accepted the negative portrayals of him I had read in the
Jewish press, but I wanted to see what all the commotion was about.
Why were they so anxious to ban this book and slander its author? To
my great surprise I discovered a most amazing book!

David Duke stated that he had set out with the ambitious goal of
writing the most powerful expose of Zionism ever put into print. With
extreme scepticism of his ability to accomplish such a lofty goal, I
began to read. Three days later, as I turned the last page, I knew
that he had accomplished more than he dreamed. Rather than just
assembling his facts in a dry textbook fashion, David Duke presents
his thesis in the first person. It is the personal narrative of a
thoughtful and enlightened young man who is sympathetic to Zionism,
but is awakened to its supremacist core that not only threatens the
Palestinians but his own beloved European-Americans as well. I could
not find even a trace of hatred, intemperance or true anti-Semitism in
this book. However, by extensive quoting of important Jewish leaders
and Zionist source materials, Duke exposes a deep well of Jewish
supremacist hatred against Gentiles. He points out that one is
unfairly labelled an 'anti-Semite' simply for exposing the hateful
pronouncements of Jewish supremacists.

ABSOLVES SOME JEWS

The book is clearly not anti-Semitic. Duke goes at length to point out
that not all Jews are supremacists, and that the supremacists not only
endanger the Gentile world but threaten innocent Jews by exposing them
to an inevitably hostile Gentile reaction. The book is in fact
dedicated to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and
Israeli peace activist whose life was dedicated to saving both Jews
and Gentiles from the dangers of 'Jewish supremacism'. David Duke
cleverly turns the term 'anti-Semitic' on its head by quoting
columnist Joseph Sobran's remark that the 'anti-Semite' is no longer
someone who dislikes Jews; he is now simply a person whom the Jews
don't like.

Jewish Supremacism begins with David Duke's first great epiphany on
the Jewish question: his learning that the Russian Revolution wasn't
Russian but overwhelmingly Jewish. Using powerful documentary
evidence, he shows that the Bolshevik Revolution was actually financed
and led by Jews who had their own agenda against the Czar. He quotes
from familiar and impeccable sources such as Winston Churchill, the
dispatches of the American ambassador to Russia, the chief of British
Intelligence and copious Jewish sources. For instance, he quotes a
report from the National Archives of the United States showing that of
the 384 members of the first Bolshevik government, there were more
than 300 Jews and only 13 ethnic Russians.

How could such an enormous fact of history be hidden? Duke asks. His
rhetorical question is answered throughout the rest of this book by
giving the clear evidence of the tremendous power exercised by Jewish
supremacists in government, media and the academic establishment. Not
only has the pre-eminent Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution and
its Gulags been quietly suppressed, but also even the very existence
of Jewish supremacism has been kept from public awareness. One can
freely discuss the evils of white supremacism, but if one dares to
expose Jewish supremacism, one will assuredly be labelled an 'anti-
Semite', the ultimate term of opprobrium in modern society. In very
effective arguments, Duke points out that one is not called 'anti-
Christian' for exposing the excesses of the Inquisition or 'anti-
Muslim' for opposing the intolerance of some extremist Moslem sects.
But dare simply to quote the hateful statements of important leaders
of Judaism and Zionism, and in many countries one could well wind up
in prison for 'hate speech'.

One of the fascinating themes to which David Duke repeatedly turns is
the easily documented Jewish supremacist strategy of fostering extreme
chauvinism among their own people while at the same time working to
break down the group loyalty of the Gentiles among whom they live.
Jewish leaders have long made clear that Jewish communities often have
agendas that conflict with their Gentile hosts. Duke describes the
struggle over those agendas as similar to the contest of two football
teams. One team cultivates an extreme group loyalty through a chronic
recital of Gentile persecution and an accompanying 'chosen-people'
supremacist vision. The other is instilled with guilt and the idea
that teamwork is immoral. The main Jewish holidays are dominated by
the recounting of Gentile persecutions, and the Holocaust has now
achieved almost a religious significance in Jewish life. Duke quotes
many Jewish leaders proclaiming Jewish superiority and the need for
the race to preserve its racial genotype. Even today, Israel will
grant instant citizenship to an atheist Jew from New York, but forbids
Palestinians who were born in Israel to return. Israel also forbids
marriages between Jews and Gentiles.

While Jewish supremacists have these supremacist policies for their
own people, they relentlessly work to break down the immigration laws
of other nations. While they preach multi-culturalism and diversity
for almost every other country in which they dwell, they themselves
support and expect Americans to support a Zionist State, dedicated
exclusively to the Jewish people, religion and culture.

INFLUENCE ON MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT

In chapters on Jewish influence over the American mass media and
government, Duke offers extensive documentation that exceeds almost
anyone's suspicions. Major Jewish sources are quoted which boast of
their takeover and control of Hollywood, the news media and the most
sensitive part of the Government of the United States. For instance,
Duke quotes a major Israeli newspaper bragging about the fact that
Jews loyal to Israel make up seven out of the eleven members of the
secretive and sensitive National Security Council (NSC). The article
goes on to assert that "America no longer has a government of Goyim"
(Gentiles). Duke also quotes many US presidents and high government
officials who have dared to speak out about the Jewish supremacy over
the establishment. After thoroughly documenting Jewish supremacy in
government and media, he shows how their media power is used to stifle
public knowledge and understanding of this critical issue. Any
legitimate criticism of Jewish Supremacism is labelled 'anti-
Semitism', and the Jewish supremacists almost exclusively define that
term.

In particularly interesting passages, Duke recounts how that when he
looked up the term 'anti-Semitism' in some popular encyclopaedias, he
found that the articles and recommended reading lists were authored
entirely by Jewish zealots! In every conflict with Gentiles, Jews are
always portrayed as completely innocent while Gentiles are portrayed
as totally evil. Duke suggests that the chronic portrayal of Gentiles
as inherently evil toward Jews is for Gentiles the equivalent of
'blood libel' for Jews.

Duke makes a compelling case that the nation of Israel is the doctrine
of Jewish supremacism put into action. In startling documentary
evidence from Israel, he shows that some of the early Zionist founders
of the country readily co-operated with Nazi Germany, praised Nazi
policies and claimed that their own ideology was similar. He also
quotes major Jewish figures in Israel who have had the courage to
condemn Israel's Nuremberg style racial laws, such as former Israeli
Supreme Court member Haim Cohen, thus:-

'The bitter irony of fate, which has led the same biological and
racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which inspired the infamous
Nuremberg laws to serve as a basis of Judaism within the state of
Israel.'

With these kinds of powerful quotes, it is no wonder that Zionists
around the world are extremely fearful of this book.

ON ISRAELI TERROR

Americans will find the last chapter on Israel of particular interest.
Duke unveils the long Israeli record of terrorism. He documents the
horrendous terror waged against the Palestinians; he also exposes
Israel's long record of terrorism and treachery against its greatest
benefactor, the United States! From major Jewish sources, he recounts
the Israeli terrorist attacks against America in the Lavon Affair, in
which Israeli agents set off bombs in American installations in Egypt
in a treacherous attempt to provoke America into war against that
nation. Duke presents copious evidence exposing the deliberate,
murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in which 34 Americans were
killed and 172 grievously wounded. The terrible damage inflicted on
the United States by Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is also recounted.

Jewish supremacy in the American media and government has suppressed
any outcry against Israel's treachery. The Jewish supremacists have
even been able to prevent a formal Congressional investigation into
the attack on the USS Liberty. Duke makes the powerful point that
billions of dollars of American aid continue to flow to Israel even
after its treacherous attacks. He writes that supplying this aid is
the moral equivalent of sending military aid to Japan after the attack
on Pearl Harbour.

Duke also shows how the Zionist domination of American foreign policy
led directly to America's 9/11 catastrophe and a whole new series of
foreign policy moves that are leading to disaster. This timely book
shows the Jewish supremacist power behind the Iraq War, the
manipulation of the President and the American people with false
information, and the horrendous damage the war has done to our economy
and even our security. Duke shows how the war is costing us hundreds
of billions of dollars, continues to spill the blood of our military
men and certainly increases world hatred and terrorism against
America.

In one of the most shocking chapters of his work, Duke reveals the
damning evidence of Israeli treachery in the 9/11 attacks. He shows
that a massive Israeli spy ring was uncovered and apprehended in the
months before and after the attacks, and that some of the Mossad
agents had actually monitored the hijackers, including the leader
Mohammed Atta (five Israeli agents lived on his street). Warning
messages of the impending attacks were sent to Israeli firms with
offices both in Israel and the World Trade Centre. A group of Mossad
agents was arrested on 9/11 after they were found to have been filming
and cheering the attacks while they occurred. After they had been held
for a few months, Zionist Michael Chertoff of the US Department of
Justice released all the members of the Israeli spy ring and allowed
them to return to Israel - out of the reach of Congressional 9/11
investigators.

It is impossible to give the reader more than a glance into the depth
and power of this incredible book. Practically every paragraph is a
revelation. There is so much more that I could write about: detailing
how the Holocaust has cynically been used as a Zionist tool in
heightening Jewish solidarity and deflating criticism of Zionism and
Israel; how Jewish supremacists have used immigration as a weapon of
conquest, not only in Palestine but in the Western World as well. I
was fascinated by Duke's expose of Sigmund Freud as a secret Jewish
supremacist who thought of himself as a Hannibal destroying the
foundations of the Christian church and the European family as
Hannibal had sacked Rome. I could go on and on, but I will leave these
discoveries to you when you read this amazing book.

After I completed the book, I wanted to find out if it had the same
affect on others as it had on me. I gave it to two long-time friends
at the university where I taught for 11 years. One has conservative
leanings; the other is decidedly liberal; and I would describe both of
them as sympathetic to Israel. Both were so fascinated that they could
hardly put the book down, and one became so engrossed that he missed
his regular two o'clock class. They both agreed that Duke's book is
one of the best-argued that they have ever read, and used the
identical term of 'amazing' to describe it. My conservative friend
commented that many quotations were so shocking that he began to check
out the references and found them all to be accurate. "Hell" he said,
"If only half the documents Duke cites are authentic, there is enough
evidence here to start a revolution."



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...