| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"nan" |
| Date: |
17 Sep 2004 06:46:04 AM |
| Object: |
Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
Did Karl Marx write this? ""We support a program of catastrophe
[revolution]because catastrophe will bring an end to the system."
from www.darrellmenthe.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fascists don't always wear swastikas. [Some wear "peace signs"]
Many people have tried to define fascism, with little success. George
Orwell observed in 1946 that the term fascism has become so overused
that it scarcely means more than "something not desirable." Some
confuse it with totalitarianism, military rule, or think that, like
the Nazi party, fascism is a historical phenomenon. Some academics of
the sociological persuasion have used the opaque phrase "the
aestheticization of politics" which is intended to bring to mind the
spectacles of Nuremberg party rallies. That phrase refers to an
elevation and a dehumanization of politics, recalling fascism's
development amid the rhetoric of the avant-garde of the 1920s. Fascism
is to democratic politics what Cristo's wrapping a bridge in pink
cellophane is to art.
It is tempting to resort to Justice Stewart's defintion of
pornography, "I know it when I see it."
Fascism eludes defintion because it is a postmodern form of politics,
eclectic in its roots, raiding the past for symbols, like the ancient
swastika, the word "Aryan", and even the very fasces themselves, a
Roman symbol of authority seized on by Mussolini as if he followed in
the footsteps of the praetors. Rather than using "postmodern" as a
buzzword, let me point a few things associated with postmodernism that
are relevant to fascism: lack of metanarrative -- meaning in part a
shared set of values; a tendency to ransack the past for symbolism;
collage as art. It is definitely a post-enlightenment political
movement. In his book Doktor Faustus, Thomas Mann equates fascism with
his protagonist Leverkuhn, a composer who becomes insane (and perhaps
possessed) and decides to write a piece of music that will "undo"
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Instead of the Ode to Joy, there will be
the Lamentations of Doctor Faustus.
By saying that fascism lacks a metanarrative, it means at the very
least that it is not a coherent philosophy and does not create
expected human responses, nor are fascisms all alike. There is no
platonic fascism out there against which we might measure a fascist
movement. Fascism is what it needs to be. Fascism was anti-semitic in
Germany because hating Jews sells in Germany, or it did while there
were still Jews in Germany to hate. Italian fascism wasn't
anti-semitic: No one there cared. Rather, Italian fascism glorified
the Roman state. Russian fascism is mixed up with Orthodoxy and
militarism, and if the association of fascists with communists in
Russia, the "Red-brown" coalition is not an example of the ability of
fascism to locally reinterpret itself, then I do not know what is. In
America, fascism is racist, nativist, and sports a fundamentalist
interpretation of Christianity, akin to fundamentalist Islam or
Hinduism (!) that drives people to blow up mosques and temples and
supermarkets full of young mothers and children. That sells.
Still, this is no definition of fascism. Yet we do "know it when we
see it" What then is it? Let it be definition as collage then: not
descriptive and closed, but pointing out what fascist movements have
in common. In an America where some Hollywood stock figures include
thinking of shiny squeaky-clean suburbia and megacorporations as the
vanguard of fascism, it is worth remembering that fascism is about
more than order. Corporate oligarchy is anathema to democracy and is
fascistic because it is the exaltation of order for the sake of order
and power for those that still have it, for the sake of power -- above
all other gentler human values.
Here is what we need to see: Fascism is a struggle for power. That is
what Mein Kampf is about. It is about struggle on many levels. For
ordinary people, it is the struggle of individuals for power over
their own lives, drawing on mythic images of the warrior-hero or
(where appropriate) the proud freeholder, as justification for
violence as a means of solving problems, be they political, social, or
peronsal. It is what makes engineers don "camouflage" pants and
proclaim that they are following in the tradition of our wig-wearing
forefathers. It is what makes "Nuke the gay baby whales for Jesus"
make some kind of perverse sense. At higher levels fascism is the
struggle of a few men for absolute power -- by any means necessary.
Fascism is a rebellion against democracy, with its horrible slowness
and predictable softness and weakness, and it is a rebellion against
the constraints of ordinary morality on a desire for action. It is
little wonder that Nietzsche is popular with fascists, even if they do
not really understand him. Its sources are anger, fear, hate, pride,
and all the deepest wellsprings of human emotion. All save one: Love.
Fascism is violence and rage with reason as the enemy. It is the
ultimate reaction to the Enlightenment. No wonder it is so attractive.
Fascism is a disease.
It is a disease of the body politic, a violent reaction to
civilization infecting its individual member cells and making the
whole body stumble around in a fever and a rage. It is a mental
illness of the body politic, an expression of the latent desire for
self-destruction. That is how Germany and Italy, two of Europe's
oldest civilized nations, plunged into an orgy of destruction sixty
years ago. Fascism is the joy of tearing down. Fascism is the will
(cf: "triumph of the will") to seize political power and implement
some grand political scheme whatever the cost.
"We support a program of catastrophe" wrote a Nazi leader,
"Because catastrophe will bring an end to the system."
It is a perilous combination of selling a glorious future stitched
together from half-baked dreams, bad history, and symbols with deep
pulls on the recesses of the subconscious, together with providing an
outlet for those emotions that civil society represses: rage,
destruction, and ultimately self-destruction. That is why Serbian
"ethnic cleansing" went so cleanly hand-in-hand with mass rape. That
is why there were married couples in Bosnia who split up to fight on
different sides of the war. Such irrationality explains why the
madness can stop almost as abruptly as it seems to start. It has
echoes in Rwanda, Cambodia, and even the cultural revolution. That's
what makes the "Freemen" in Montana convinced that there is no such
thing as Federal Sovereignty or the sixteenth amendment, until they
surrender and wake up from the self-indulgent groupthink. In this mass
of deliberate self-delusion some of the gullible adherents ultimately
retain the knowledge that they are fooling themselves, THEY KNOW deep
down where it all will lead, but go there anyway -- If only out of a
very GenX sort of ennui, as a parrot will pluck all its own feathers
out when trapped in a cage and bored to the pont of mania.
1. Acknowledge the impulse within you. We all have it.
2. Recognize the warning signs around you. Conspiracy theories and
militarism are signs that people are afraid of democracy.
3. Don't buy what they're selling, no matter how good it looks.
No matter how hungry you are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
19 Sep 2004 08:33:17 PM |
|
|
On 17 Sep 2004 04:46:04 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Did Karl Marx write this? ""We support a program of catastrophe
[revolution]because catastrophe will bring an end to the system."
Fascists don't always wear swastikas. [Some wear "peace signs"]
Name one.
Many people have tried to define fascism, with little success. George
Orwell observed in 1946 that the term fascism has become so overused
that it scarcely means more than "something not desirable." Some
confuse it with totalitarianism, military rule, or think that, like
the Nazi party, fascism is a historical phenomenon. Some academics of
the sociological persuasion have used the opaque phrase "the
aestheticization of politics" which is intended to bring to mind the
spectacles of Nuremberg party rallies. That phrase refers to an
elevation and a dehumanization of politics, recalling fascism's
development amid the rhetoric of the avant-garde of the 1920s. Fascism
is to democratic politics what Cristo's wrapping a bridge in pink
cellophane is to art.
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the supression of
the supernational Press and the definate abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favourable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
It is tempting to resort to Justice Stewart's defintion of
pornography, "I know it when I see it."
Fascism eludes defintion because it is a postmodern form of politics,
Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw
abortion
Economic law examples-- have a minimum wage, have laws regarding
retirement and overtime
Conservative - For Moral Laws, Against Economic laws
Liberal - Against Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
Libertarian - Against Moral Laws, Against Economic Laws
Fascist - For Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
eclectic in its roots, raiding the past for symbols, like the ancient
swastika, the word "Aryan", and even the very fasces themselves, a
Roman symbol of authority seized on by Mussolini as if he followed in
the footsteps of the praetors. Rather than using "postmodern" as a
buzzword, let me point a few things associated with postmodernism that
are relevant to fascism: lack of metanarrative -- meaning in part a
shared set of values; a tendency to ransack the past for symbolism;
collage as art. It is definitely a post-enlightenment political
movement. In his book Doktor Faustus, Thomas Mann equates fascism with
his protagonist Leverkuhn, a composer who becomes insane (and perhaps
possessed) and decides to write a piece of music that will "undo"
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Instead of the Ode to Joy, there will be
the Lamentations of Doctor Faustus.
ADOLF HITLER
NUREMBERG
SPEECH OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1938
...National Socialism is not a cult-movement - a movement for worship;
it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial
principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and
leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.
Therefore we have no rooms for worship, but only halls for the people
- no open spaces for worship, but spaces for assemblies and parades.
We have no religious retreats, but arenas for sports and
playing-fields, and the characteristic feature of our places of
assembly is not the mystical gloom of a cathedral, but the brightness
and light of a room or hall which combines beauty with fitness for its
purpose. In these halls no acts of worship are celebrated, they are
exclusively devoted to gatherings of the people of the kind which we
have come to know in the course of our long struggle; to such
gatherings we have become accustomed and we wish to maintain them. We
will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for
exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement.
Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else - in any
case, something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our
program there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and
straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central
point of this perception and of this profession of belief the
maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by
God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a
divine will - not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship,
but openly before the face of the Lord.
There were times when a half-light was the necessary condition for the
effectiveness of certain teachings: we live in an age when light is
for us the fundamental condition of successful action. It will be a
sorry day when through the stealing in of obscure mystic elements the
Movement or the State itself issues obscure commissions.... It is even
dangerous to issue any commission for a so-called place of worship,
for with the building will arise the necessity for thinking out
so-called religious recreations or religious rites, which have nothing
to do with National Socialism. Our worship is exclusively the
cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural,
therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission
before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us
men: it is to these we pay our respect. Our commandment is the
courageous fulfillment of the duties arising from those laws. But for
religious rites we are not the authorities, but the churches! If
anyone should believe that these tasks of ours are not enough for him,
that they do not correspond with his convictions, then it is for him
to prove that God desires to use him to change things for the better.
In no event can National Socialism or the National Socialist State
give to German art other tasks than those which accord with our view
of the world.
The only sphere in which the Jewish international newspapers still
today think that they can attack the new Reich is the cultural sphere.
Here they attempt, by a constant appeal to the sentimentality -
untroubled by any sort of knowledge - of the world-citizens of
democracy to bewail the downfall of German culture: in other words,
they lament the commercial closing-down of those elements which, as
the heralds and exponents of the November Republic, forced their
cultural characteristics, as unnatural as they were deplorable, upon
the period between the two Empires; and which have now played out
their role for good and all....
Fortunately, however, despite the short time which the National
Socialist leadership has been able to allot to works of culture,
positive facts, here too, speak louder than any negative criticism. We
Germans can today speak with justice of a new awakening of our
cultural life, which finds its confirmation not in mutual compliments
and literary phrases, but rather in positive evidences of cultural
creative force. German architecture, sculpture, painting, drama, and
the rest bring today documentary proof of a creative period in art,
which for richness and impetuosity has rarely been matched in the
course of human history. And although the Jewish-democratic press
magnates in their effrontery even today seek brazenly to turn these
facts upside down, we know that the cultural achievements of Germany
will in a few years have won from the world respect and appreciation
far more unstinted even than that which they now accord to our work in
the material field. The buildings which are arising in the Reich today
will speak a language that endures, a language, above all, more
compelling than the Yiddish gabblings of the democratic, international
judges of our culture. What the fingers of these poor wretches have
penned or are penning the world will - perhaps unfortunately - forget,
as it has forgotten so much else. But the gigantic works of the Third
Reich are a token of its cultural renascence and shall one day belong
to the inalienable cultural heritage of the Western world, just as the
great cultural achievements of this world in the past belong to us
today...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
20 Sep 2004 06:58:53 AM |
|
|
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cicsk0lda4f1a9qsg5agckpt6927vbf10j@4ax.com>...
On 17 Sep 2004 04:46:04 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Did Karl Marx write this? ""We support a program of catastrophe
[revolution]because catastrophe will bring an end to the system."
Fascists don't always wear swastikas. [Some wear "peace signs"]
Name one.
Bellicose "anti-war" protesters, for example.
As Orwell suggests as early as 1946, the words "fascism" and "fascist"
have transmuted from their original meaning to generic ad hominem
terms. The derogatorials "fascist" and "fascism" emit almost
exclusively from leftists and "liberals". In today's psychopolitical
usage, the epithets "fascist" and "nazi" connotes synonymy.
BTW, Hitler wrote the above quoted statement which also loudly
resounds the revolutionary imperative of Marx's Manifesto.
Many people have tried to define fascism, with little success. George
Orwell observed in 1946 that the term fascism has become so overused
that it scarcely means more than "something not desirable." Some
confuse it with totalitarianism, military rule, or think that, like
the Nazi party, fascism is a historical phenomenon. Some academics of
the sociological persuasion have used the opaque phrase "the
aestheticization of politics" which is intended to bring to mind the
spectacles of Nuremberg party rallies. That phrase refers to an
elevation and a dehumanization of politics, recalling fascism's
development amid the rhetoric of the avant-garde of the 1920s. Fascism
is to democratic politics what Cristo's wrapping a bridge in pink
cellophane is to art.
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The fight which Fascist Italy waged against Jewry's three
principal weapons, the profound reasons for which may not of been
consciously understood (though I do not believe this myself) furnishes
the best proof that the poison fangs of that Power which transcends
all State boundaries are being drawn, even though in an indirect way.
The prohibition of Freemasonry and secret societies, the supression of
the supernational Press and the definate abolition of Marxism,
together with the steadily increasing consolidation of the Fascist
concept of the State--all this will enable the Italian Government, in
the course of some years, to advance more and more the interests of
the Italian people without paying any attention to the hissing of the
Jewish world-hydra.
"The English situation is not so favourable. In that country
which has 'the freest democracy' the Jew dictates his will, almost
unrestrained but indirectly, through his influence on public opinion."
It is tempting to resort to Justice Stewart's defintion of
pornography, "I know it when I see it."
Fascism eludes defintion because it is a postmodern form of politics,
Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw
abortion
Economic law examples-- have a minimum wage, have laws regarding
retirement and overtime
Conservative - For Moral Laws, Against Economic laws
Liberal - Against Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
Libertarian - Against Moral Laws, Against Economic Laws
Fascist - For Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
The above is too narrowly generalized and rigidly stereotypically
casted.
Furthermore, besides being an extreme over-simplification, it provides
an example of Either/Or fallacious exposition.
Contradiction: Liberals promoted the supra-moral concept "hate crime,"
didn't they?
Rigid orthodoxical thinking is oppressively absolute and illiberally
egocentric, no matter what the orthodoxy - for instance, both atheist
and theist orthodoxies share an equal intolerance for the other.
from Nan seeking the Golden Mean which is not at the center of
anything.
eclectic in its roots, raiding the past for symbols, like the ancient
swastika, the word "Aryan", and even the very fasces themselves, a
Roman symbol of authority seized on by Mussolini as if he followed in
the footsteps of the praetors. Rather than using "postmodern" as a
buzzword, let me point a few things associated with postmodernism that
are relevant to fascism: lack of metanarrative -- meaning in part a
shared set of values; a tendency to ransack the past for symbolism;
collage as art. It is definitely a post-enlightenment political
movement. In his book Doktor Faustus, Thomas Mann equates fascism with
his protagonist Leverkuhn, a composer who becomes insane (and perhaps
possessed) and decides to write a piece of music that will "undo"
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Instead of the Ode to Joy, there will be
the Lamentations of Doctor Faustus.
ADOLF HITLER
NUREMBERG
SPEECH OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1938
..National Socialism is not a cult-movement - a movement for worship;
it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial
principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and
leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.
Therefore we have no rooms for worship, but only halls for the people
- no open spaces for worship, but spaces for assemblies and parades.
We have no religious retreats, but arenas for sports and
playing-fields, and the characteristic feature of our places of
assembly is not the mystical gloom of a cathedral, but the brightness
and light of a room or hall which combines beauty with fitness for its
purpose. In these halls no acts of worship are celebrated, they are
exclusively devoted to gatherings of the people of the kind which we
have come to know in the course of our long struggle; to such
gatherings we have become accustomed and we wish to maintain them. We
will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for
exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement.
Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else - in any
case, something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our
program there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and
straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central
point of this perception and of this profession of belief the
maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by
God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a
divine will - not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship,
but openly before the face of the Lord.
<Hitler's speech snipped for the sake of economy>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "CBZ" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
20 Sep 2004 11:00:03 PM |
|
|
Just one original thought. Please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
21 Sep 2004 05:17:08 AM |
|
|
"CBZ" <cbz@lasalle.com> wrote in message news:<WPadnYFBwsuXOtLcRVn-hA@adelphia.com>...
Just one original thought. Please.
CBZ, it's absurd for you to bait with a request for originality when
you chant cliches and group-think conformity.
Demostrate your own original thinking rather than engaging in typical
"liberal" baiting and antagonism: neurotic brat reactions which
qualify the psychopolitical cloned "liberal" partisan.
Thanks for continuing to provide examples of an antagonistic
psychopolitical clone. You're working for me.
from Nan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
21 Sep 2004 08:04:31 PM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2004 04:58:53 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Bellicose "anti-war" protesters, for example.
Why do you say they are fascist? Do they say they are fascist? I say
I am fascist. Heil Hitler.
As Orwell suggests as early as 1946, the words "fascism" and "fascist"
have transmuted from their original meaning to generic ad hominem
terms. The derogatorials "fascist" and "fascism" emit almost
exclusively from leftists and "liberals". In today's psychopolitical
usage, the epithets "fascist" and "nazi" connotes synonymy.
What Orwell said may be interesting but it doesn't matter. What
Mussolini said matters. Fascism is the system that was in Italy during
the time of Mussolini. That is the one and only meaning.
BTW, Hitler wrote the above quoted statement which also loudly
resounds the revolutionary imperative of Marx's Manifesto.
I forget what the statement was.
The above is too narrowly generalized and rigidly stereotypically
casted.
Did you want me to write a book? The above was fascism.
Furthermore, besides being an extreme over-simplification, it provides
an example of Either/Or fallacious exposition.
What are you trying to say?
Contradiction: Liberals promoted the supra-moral concept "hate crime,"
didn't they?
Yes
Rigid orthodoxical thinking is oppressively absolute and illiberally
egocentric, no matter what the orthodoxy - for instance, both atheist
and theist orthodoxies share an equal intolerance for the other.
from Nan seeking the Golden Mean which is not at the center of
anything.
It's not clear what you are seeking. I am seeking Fascism and
National Socialism.
<Hitler's speech snipped for the sake of economy>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
22 Sep 2004 06:20:35 AM |
|
|
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q5j1l05nkcjnce5gsgkuu39t8ojini17eo@4ax.com>...
On 20 Sep 2004 04:58:53 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Bellicose "anti-war" protesters, for example.
Why do you say they are fascist? Do they say they are fascist? I say
I am fascist. Heil Hitler.
As Orwell suggests as early as 1946, the words "fascism" and "fascist"
have transmuted from their original meaning to generic ad hominem
terms. The derogatorials "fascist" and "fascism" emit almost
exclusively from leftists and "liberals". In today's psychopolitical
usage, the epithets "fascist" and "nazi" connotes synonymy.
What Orwell said may be interesting but it doesn't matter. What
Mussolini said matters. Fascism is the system that was in Italy during
the time of Mussolini. That is the one and only meaning.
BTW, Hitler wrote the above quoted statement which also loudly
resounds the revolutionary imperative of Marx's Manifesto.
I forget what the statement was.
The above is too narrowly generalized and rigidly stereotypically
casted.
Did you want me to write a book? The above was fascism.
Furthermore, besides being an extreme over-simplification, it provides
an example of Either/Or fallacious exposition.
What are you trying to say?
Contradiction: Liberals promoted the supra-moral concept "hate crime,"
didn't they?
Yes
Rigid orthodoxical thinking is oppressively absolute and illiberally
egocentric, no matter what the orthodoxy - for instance, both atheist
and theist orthodoxies share an equal intolerance for the other.
from Nan seeking the Golden Mean which is not at the center of
anything.
It's not clear what you are seeking. I am seeking Fascism and
National Socialism.
<Hitler's speech snipped for the sake of economy>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Then follow the agenda and partyline of the neoMarxist, pro-socialist
Democrat party and YOU WILL FIND IT.
The Golden Mean - check it out. Obvious the concept is beyond your
comprehension because you're limited to Either/Or fallacious
cognition.
from Nan
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
22 Sep 2004 04:25:23 PM |
|
|
(nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.0409220320.71f3d4da@posting.google.com>...
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q5j1l05nkcjnce5gsgkuu39t8ojini17eo@4ax.com>...
On 20 Sep 2004 04:58:53 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Bellicose "anti-war" protesters, for example.
Why do you say they are fascist? Do they say they are fascist? I say
I am fascist. Heil Hitler
If it acts like a fascist/nazi antagonistic baiting storm trooper, no
matter what it call itself, it's a fascist/nazi.
George Orwell, who was far more astute than you or I, observed in post
war WWII year 1946, in effect, that the derogatorial term "fascist"
became a catch-all ad hominem having the connotation of a brutish
hateful person. The word is used as an ad hominem by leftist with a
meaning synoymous with "nazi storm trooper."
Who wrote this tenet advocating perversity?:
"We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the
enemy supports." And does this tenet describe the perversity of
Bush-Bashing?
As Orwell suggests as early as 1946, the words "fascism" and "fascist"
have transmuted from their original meaning to generic ad hominem
terms. The derogatorials "fascist" and "fascism" emit almost
exclusively from leftists and "liberals". In today's psychopolitical
usage, the epithets "fascist" and "nazi" connotes synonymy.
What Orwell said may be interesting but it doesn't matter. What
Mussolini said matters. Fascism is the system that was in Italy during
the time of Mussolini. That is the one and only meaning.
I'm not held to Mussolini's demagogueral definition of "fascism." He
was put out of business VERY QUICKLY. Today, in common usage, the term
"facist" transmutted to become an ubiquitous derogatory label - a
stereotype. I agree with Orwell. Both Fascism and Nazism based their
demagoguery on the revolutionary ideology and tenets of Karl Marx's
Manifesto.
BTW, Hitler wrote the above quoted statement which also loudly
resounds the revolutionary imperative of Marx's Manifesto.
I forget what the statement was.
What you really mean you don't get the point at all.
The above is too narrowly generalized and rigidly stereotypically
casted.
Did you want me to write a book? The above was fascism.
No, I prefer you not spew, like a brainwashed clone, partyline
cliches.
why don't you read pre-WWII history from diverse and contradicting
sources for comprehensive understanding.
Furthermore, besides being an extreme over-simplification, it provides
an example of Either/Or fallacious exposition.
What are you trying to say?
You are brainwashed and have a stock full of cliches.
Contradiction: Liberals promoted the supra-moral concept "hate crime,"
didn't they?
Yes
Rigid orthodoxical thinking is oppressively absolute and illiberally
egocentric, no matter what the orthodoxy - for instance, both atheist
and theist orthodoxies share an equal intolerance for the other.
from Nan seeking the Golden Mean which is not at the center of
anything.
It's not clear what you are seeking. I am seeking Fascism and
National Socialism.
As I said before, follow the agenda and partyline of the neoMarxist,
pro-socialist factions within the Democrat party and YOU WILL FIND IT.
Seeking the Golden Mean is more enlightening, more liberating. If this
philosophical concept is beyond your comprehension, you'll be limited
to fallacious Either/Or cognition, and chronic fallacy in thinking is
a prime diagnostic indication of simplemindedness and/or of being
brainwashed.
from Nan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
22 Sep 2004 10:23:20 PM |
|
|
(nan) wrote:
(nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.0409220320.71f3d4da@posting.google.com>...
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q5j1l05nkcjnce5gsgkuu39t8ojini17eo@4ax.com>...
On 20 Sep 2004 04:58:53 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Bellicose "anti-war" protesters, for example.
Why do you say they are fascist? Do they say they are fascist? I say
I am fascist. Heil Hitler
If it acts like a fascist/nazi antagonistic baiting storm trooper, no
matter what it call itself, it's a fascist/nazi.
Hilarious! Nan arguing with an admitted Nazi and fascist that she
knows better than he does what a fascist is.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
23 Sep 2004 07:58:06 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<oag4l0pl275pp9i38dlic4565qde5i9267@4ax.com>...
(nan) wrote:
(nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.0409220320.71f3d4da@posting.google.com>...
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q5j1l05nkcjnce5gsgkuu39t8ojini17eo@4ax.com>...
On 20 Sep 2004 04:58:53 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Bellicose "anti-war" protesters, for example.
Why do you say they are fascist? Do they say they are fascist? I say
I am fascist. Heil Hitler
If it acts like a fascist/nazi antagonistic baiting storm trooper, no
matter what it call itself, it's a fascist/nazi.
Hilarious! Nan arguing with an admitted Nazi and fascist that she
knows better than he does what a fascist is.
lojbab
"Resistance to fascism - molar and molecular, to fascism of the
universals and of the partialities - is not some abstract position
that, in addition, stops at being anti- totalitarian or
anti-militaristic. It cannot continue to be defined by being
anti-State, anti-Capital, anti-War, anti-Patriarchal, anti-etc, etc,
etc. The Left has manufactured these nihilistic positions, these
images of negation that only deny themselves, and not the desire for
Power that smothers the living and is the real source of all fascisms.
And the Left seems all the more capable of creating a vacuum around
all social issues as it has successfully abandoned all its analytical
pretensions. What Deleuze said of the New Philosophers fully applies
here - to the entirety of the Left: they have abandoned even Marx, but
they "don't begin to present any new analysis of capital, which
mysteriously drops out of consideration in their work" [15]. It is,
and has been for a long time now, far more than that: simply no new
analysis. Neither of Capital, nor of the State, nor of War and
fascism. Nor of the Left itself. If the analysis was wrong - in all
the marxist and anarchist pasts of the Left - it may now be forgotten.
Only Power counts, only seizing Potestas matters, and it all resides
in the powers of representation - a game for mafiosi, a costly game
that must put many kinds of masses into flux."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
23 Sep 2004 06:36:57 PM |
|
|
On 23 Sep 2004 05:58:06 -0700, (nan) wrote:
"Resistance to fascism - molar and molecular, to fascism of the
universals and of the partialities - is not some abstract position
that, in addition, stops at being anti- totalitarian or
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the
multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and
personal efficiency."
"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in
the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the
individual personality?"
"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might
not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless
the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the
facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the
crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics.
Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real
qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in
political life; because under these circumstances the situation does
not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of
the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will
attract them accordingly."
"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority
can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance
but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one
man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political
line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude."
"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system
to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed
deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of
nonentities who are dependant on others for their views and who can
be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each
individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according
the the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put into effect. And by
this method alone is it possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the
real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never
be brought to account for his actions."
"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone
should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man
responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the
politicians for the time being, who constituted the parlimentary
majority, were small and incompetent men or maybe even on a lower
grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for abstract
principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of the
nation."
"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for
the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and
influence in the community."
anti-militaristic. It cannot continue to be defined by being
anti-State, anti-Capital, anti-War, anti-Patriarchal, anti-etc, etc,
etc. The Left has manufactured these nihilistic positions, these
images of negation that only deny themselves, and not the desire for
Power that smothers the living and is the real source of all fascisms.
And the Left seems all the more capable of creating a vacuum around
all social issues as it has successfully abandoned all its analytical
pretensions. What Deleuze said of the New Philosophers fully applies
here - to the entirety of the Left: they have abandoned even Marx, but
they "don't begin to present any new analysis of capital, which
mysteriously drops out of consideration in their work" [15]. It is,
and has been for a long time now, far more than that: simply no new
analysis. Neither of Capital, nor of the State, nor of War and
fascism. Nor of the Left itself. If the analysis was wrong - in all
the marxist and anarchist pasts of the Left - it may now be forgotten.
Only Power counts, only seizing Potestas matters, and it all resides
in the powers of representation - a game for mafiosi, a costly game
that must put many kinds of masses into flux."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nan" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
26 Sep 2004 05:20:35 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<oag4l0pl275pp9i38dlic4565qde5i9267@4ax.com>...
(nan) wrote:
(nan) wrote in message news:<8f49fa86.0409220320.71f3d4da@posting.google.com>...
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<q5j1l05nkcjnce5gsgkuu39t8ojini17eo@4ax.com>...
On 20 Sep 2004 04:58:53 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Bellicose "anti-war" protesters, for example.
Why do you say they are fascist? Do they say they are fascist? I say
I am fascist. Heil Hitler
If it acts like a fascist/nazi antagonistic baiting storm trooper, no
matter what it call itself, it's a fascist/nazi.
Hilarious! Nan arguing with an admitted Nazi and fascist that she
knows better than he does what a fascist is.
lojbab
Nazis and fascists were leftist movements to overthrow the
establisment.
Once is power, like the Communists, the nazis and fascists became more
oppressive and tyrannical than the established governements they
surplanted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Excerpt]
....The character of a potential Leftist has as the basic component a
mix of overly intense envy, covetousness, a desire for power and
domination, and aggresiveness. Potential Leftists are inclined to
rationalize the use of coercive methods – the crudest one being
ordinary robbery - to take from those who they perceive as being
excessively wealthy . They regard seizing by force for themselves of
the property of someone else as sanctioned by a natural right to
eliminate material inequality. Stronger yet than the covetousness
after unearned wealth is the lust for domineering, coercive power
over society. The proferred rationale for autocratic domination over
people is ‘the interest of the common good'. This lust to be ‘in
charge' attracts Leftists to revolutionary politics and to popular
social and environmental causes and movements.
In contrast, a potential free market entrepreneurial wizard, who
is also motivated by greed, will use persuasive, imaginative trading
practices to convince others to relinquish their money or property to
him. He may also have an inordinate desire for power, but that power
will have the form of dominance in a sector of the economy or
industry, and will only indirectly influence the behavior of other
members of society.
A coercive utopian explains all our societal (and lately also
environmental) problems and injustices in terms of conflict between
groups or classes of people having unequal economic power and social
status. The coercive utopian believes that absolutely perfect
collectivistic solutions exist for all problems. The solutions are
arrived at by constructive rational reasoning and must be implemented
- by coercive means, if necessary (and it always is necessary!) - to
create the perfect egalitarian society. The belief is akin to faith in
a religious dogma, strongly held and mostly impervious to
counter-argument. The coercive utopian feels that by participating in
some active capacity in the ‘struggle' (whatever that may be) he/she
earns the right, once victory is attained, to be ‘in charge': to have
authority, status and influence.
The particular cause that energizes an individual who has the
mind-set of a coercive utopian need not be founded on hard ideology or
party politics. For example, coercive utopians agitate for a multitude
of issues that we classify broadly as belonging under the 'political
correctness' (PC) label. Almost every PC issue is a social slight or
injustice perceived to be festering in public attitudes and practices
regarding things like gender, race, culture, sexuality, and so on.
Coercive utopians always form the leadership cadre when a public
campaign is staged against the 'injustice', and the means of
ameliorating of the injustice recommended by them invariably calls for
some kind of universally enforced coercive measure that would change
social behavior.
Although coercive utopians who are engaged in PC activities do not
necessarily proclaim affiliation with a Leftist political party, their
political sympathies are almost without exception with the Left.
Sadly, the same also applies to various movements and organizations
concerned with environmental issues. For example, it would be
exceptional to encounter a member in the Greenpeace organization with
conservative political leanings, and rare indeed to find an avowed
anti-Communist in that group.
Leftists are inclined to be aggressive activists, promoting their
utopian convictions publicly with evangelical zeal. Through their
fervor, in the heat of the moment, they often unveil the ugly side of
their character by inadvertently blurting out their eager anticipation
of the time when they will administer, with relish, the coercive
measures upon their perceived enemies. For the Leftist politician the
desire is to enact legislation for grandiose collectivistic and
economically leveling undertakings. For the Leftist academician and
intellectual the desire is, to put it simply, to force everyone to
think and act in a manner that would conform with a model of human
behavior in an ideal egalitarian society conceptualized by Leftist
philosophy. For the blue-collar Leftist street fighter the underlying
motivation can be as simple as hatred for the boss.
The nature of the Leftists' character inescapably shapes their
ideology. There is an unpleasant truth about Leftism that its
followers will of course hotly deny. The fundamental, subliminal
allure of Leftism is not its call to altruistic service to improve the
lot of man, but rather it is the promise of power to those who
participate in implementing the necessary coercive measures. Expressed
in its crudest form, the Leftist ideology attempts to justify looting
of wealth and labor, and the complete regimentation of society. It
advocates, first of all, that it is quite all right that those who
have not take by force from those who have, and secondly, that nobody
has an inviolable right to permanent ownership of anything. That
premise serves to justify taxation as well as confiscation and that
grand old euphemism - nationalization.
The traditional pre-requisite for power is property and wealth.
The conservative believes that wealth confers a privilege to hold
power. The classical liberal (myself included) denies inherited
privilege to anyone, but nevertheless recognizes the relationship
between wealth and power. When private ownership of property is
declared null and void, power is there simply for the taking by the
bold Leftist activist.
I am sure that there are many others who, like I, were able to
infer almost instinctively, the subliminal motivation of the Leftists
during the "cold war" decades. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear
could discern the masked utopian yearnings for coercive - even
sanguinary - solutions, beneath the noise of the Leftists' propaganda
and protest demonstrations, much like sonar discerns the echo of the
target deep below the surface through the incidental background noise.
However, very few people have had the courage to state publicly the
incontrovertible historical evidence of the ugly undercurrents that
course through the Leftist philosophy, and the sociopathic
predispositions of its followers.
The wide-spread reticence to indict the Left publicly is in part
due to instilled social mores. Our culture conditions us to practice
politeness as a matter of course. Furthermore, from a very pragmatic
standpoint, sweeping accusatory declarations against all followers of
a particular religious or ideological dogma inevitably offends
individuals with whom one may wish to maintain civil or even cordial
relations. Getting along in a democratic society precludes the
uttering of some things in public, freedom of speech notwithstanding.
Above all, the main reason for the Left's inviolability is the
certainty that wrath and condemnation, generated by the strongly
integrated Leftist support system, will pour forth from every
conceivable media and institutional outlet upon the accusing party. At
best, a person who dares to spotlight the sympathetic connections
between the Left of democratic societies and totalitarian killers, is
simply called a "wing-nut", not to be taken seriously. At worst, the
person is subjected to a very effective campaign of vilification,
being branded as a McCarthyite, a Nazi, or the like. Often enough, the
Left's organized counter-thrust has destroyed the career and
reputation of the accuser, so that most individuals whose livelihood
depends on a good public reputation weigh the consequences carefully
before attacking the Left.
Nevertheless, numerous exposes, reports and histories on the
horrendous atrocities perpetrated by Leftist tyrannies have appeared
since WW II. Some of these, like the works of Alexander Solzhenitsyn
and Robert Conquest, have even achieved some literary standing and
popularity in the western democracies. But more general philosophical
discourses on the pathologies of the Leftist movement as such have
been received with blatant hostility in democratic societies.
Widespread dissemination of these works has been discouraged through
subtle intimidation of the better-known publishing houses into not
accepting such works for publication, and by non-recognition of such
works by the literary reviewers of major newspapers and periodicals.
Therefore, works by authors such as Friedrich A. Hayek, Erik von
Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Jean-Francois Revel, which penetrate to the
psychogenic roots of Leftism, are consigned to relative obscurity.
During his long and outstanding life as a political philosopher
and economist Hayek has performed one of the most complete
examinations of Leftist ideology from the standpoint of its effect on
the economy, the law, societal mores, and political institutions. His
first notable work on the subject was "The Road to Serfdom", published
in 1944. Considering the circumstances of the times - the Soviet Union
was a comrade-in-arms of the West - the book caused great
consternation in the Leftist camp. Hayek could expound on the topic
with exceptional perspicacity. In "The Road to Serfdom" Hayek had this
to say about 'ends' justifying 'means':
'Like formal law, the rules of individualist ethics, however
imprecise they may be in many respects, are general and absolute; they
prescribe or prohibit a general type of action irrespective of whether
in the particular instance the ultimate purpose is good or bad.
The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist
ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it
becomes necessarily the supreme rule: there is literally nothing which
the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves
"the good of the whole," because the "good of the whole" is to him the
only criterion of what ought to be done.' [excerpt, LEFTISTS, written
by George J. Irbe, Ontario Canada]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
28 Sep 2004 06:31:31 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2004 15:20:35 -0700, (nan) wrote:
Nazis and fascists were leftist movements to overthrow the
establisment.
"Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon
the rubbish heap.
Fascism...does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and
anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini
In 1923 Mussolini was asked by an Italian encyclopedia person to
define and explain the word "Fascism" for their new edition. He said
the key concepts of fascism were overt nationalism, and repudiation of
liberalism in all its forms.
Once is power, like the Communists, the nazis and fascists became more
oppressive and tyrannical than the established governements they
surplanted.
National Socialist Germany was not different from other countries
in regard to free speach laws. The only difference was the right was
in power instead of the left. Before Hitler was in power he had a lot
of his papers banned, and when he was in power he also banned things.
Even today most countries do not have free speech. In leftist Germany
today people get arrested for doubting the holo story and other
things. People in Britain get arrested for politically incorrect
speech or writting. Saying that the races are not all equal in
intelligence is against the law there.
The United States has the most free speech but even here it has
banned things. At one time the play "Merchant of Venice" was banned in
New York because it offended the Jews. People in America were arrested
for their beliefs during WWII. All countries did that.
But the United States does have the most free speech and this was a
great idea. Hitler also had a great idea of removing the Jews from
controlling the media. If we could combine these two ideas we could
have a winning combination. Allowing free speech is not the same as
allowing one unelected group to virtually control all of the media.
The media is the real power, and a minor post such as President of the
United States is like nothing by comparison. Why are we voting for
President and not voting for who will control the media? When it comes
to owning TV stations it is only money that talks, not morality or
virtue.
In the Jews country, which Americans are giving billions of
dollars to, they don't allow non-Jews to own certain media.
National Socialism was mainly about things like making Germany for
the Germans, and rejecting both Communism and Capitalism. But Free
Speech is also a great idea. National Socialists today should make it
clear that Free Speech is sacred and that no party should be allowed
to change that.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
23 Sep 2004 06:26:31 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2004 14:25:23 -0700, (nan) wrote:
If it acts like a fascist/nazi antagonistic baiting storm trooper, no
matter what it call itself, it's a fascist/nazi.
The Jews control the media and tell their version of how people act.
And how people act does not say much about what they want, what
they believe, or what they are fighting for.
George Orwell, who was far more astute than you or I, observed in post
war WWII year 1946, in effect, that the derogatorial term "fascist"
became a catch-all ad hominem having the connotation of a brutish
hateful person. The word is used as an ad hominem by leftist with a
meaning synoymous with "nazi storm trooper."
"He was born into humble circumstances, the son of an obscure civil
servant in a remote corner of a crumbling empire, yet his name
resounds throughout the world to this day.
He was rejected by the universities of his time for formal enrollment
in art and in architecture, and yet he erected mighty buildings and
monuments, and today a simple postcard that he drew in ink or
charcoal fetches staggering sums at auction.
He never achieved more than a public school education, yet he wrote a
book which has outsold every other book in history except for the
Bible.
He fought as a front line soldier through all four years of the
greatest war in history up to that time, never rising above the rank
of corporal, but he won both of his country's highest decorations for
bravery under fire and rose to command the mightiest armies on earth.
Almost unique in the history of his century, he was not a lawyer or an
aristocrat or a man of inherited wealth and privilege, but a man who
once earned his daily bread with the labor of his hands, and yet he
conquered politics and rose to the leadership of the most brilliant
and creative nation on earth. So that his people might travel across
the land he loved quickly and cheaply, he created a simple and sturdy
automobile still in use today, and a network of highways that still
spans Germany. His game and forestry laws are still in force, and are
praised by ecologists as a model of environmental protection. His
economic program received the sincerest form of flattery from the
loathsome Roosevelt, who stole it and copied it into the context of
the American Depression as his own.
Every man who ever met him personally, even those who became his
bitterest enemies, spoke of him forever afterwards with awe and
admiration. His courtesy and his gallantry toward women were
legendary. With his power and his prestige he could have had any woman
he wanted, but the woman he chose as his life's partner, and who
eventually died by his side, was a simple and humble daughter of the
people.
He did not drink. He did not smoke. He was a lifelong lover of animals
and children and was happiest in the company of toddlers rather than
statesmen and soldiers, and no one ever overheard him use a profane
word or tell a smutty joke. He lifted his people up from the mud of
defeat and despair and alien domination, and he died trying to do the
same for all of us.
To this day, his memory is kept green by the Aryan peoples of Germany
and the world, even though it means prison, and in some countries
death, to honor him or his legacy within the sight or hearing of the
tyrant. He has been slandered, vilified, lied about, cursed,
distorted, and damned every day since his death by the most powerful
and evil tyranny mankind has ever known, and yet his name and his
Symbol cannot be suppressed by force or by propaganda. As we begin
this new Millennium, his book is read and his name is on more lips
than ever before and his image and his strength fills the hearts of a
whole new generation of young Aryan men and women."
******************************************************************************
"When your mother has grown older,
When her dear, faithful eyes
no longer see life as they once did,
When her feet, grown tired,
No longer want to carry her as she walks -
Then lend her your arm in support,
Escort her with happy pleasure.
The hour will come when, weeping, you
Must accompany her on her final walk.
And if she asks you something,
Then give her an answer.
And if she asks again, then speak!
And if she asks yet again, respond to her,
Not impatiently, but with gentle calm.
And if she cannot understand you properly
Explain all to her happily.
The hour will come, the bitter hour,
When her mouth asks for nothing more."
Those lines were written by Adolf Hitler, in 1923."
*******************************************************************
In the Thicket of the Forest at Artois
"It was in the thicket of the Artois Wood.
Deep in the trees, on blood-soaked ground,
Lay stretched a wounded German warrior,
And his cries rang out in the night.
In vain ... no echo answered his plea ...
Will he bleed to death like a beast,
That shot in the gut dies alone?
Then suddenly ...
Heavy steps approach from the right
He hears how they stamp on the forest floor ...
And new hope springs from his soul.
And now from the left ...
And now from both sides ...
Two men approach his miserable bed
A German it is, and a Frenchman.
And each watches the other with distrustful glance,
And threatening they aim their weapons.
The German warrior asks:
"What do you do here?"
"I was touched by the needy one's call for help."
"It's your enemy!"
"It is a man who suffers."
And both, wordless, lowered their weapons.
Then entwined their hands
And, with muscles tensed, carefully lifted
The wounded warrior, as if on a stretcher,
And carried him through the woods.
'Til they came to the German outposts.
"Now it is over. He will get good care."
And the Frenchman turns back toward the woods.
But the German grasps for his hand,
Looks, moved, into sorrow-dimmed eyes
And says to him with earnest foreboding:
"I know not what fate holds for us,
Which inscrutably rules in the stars.
Perhaps I shall fall, a victim of your bullet.
Maybe mine will fell you on the sand
For indifferent is the chance of battles.
Yet, however it may be and whatever may come:
We lived these sacred hours,
Where man found himself in man ...
And now, farewell! And God be with you!"
Adolf Hitler, 1916
Who wrote this tenet advocating perversity?:
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."
"We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the
enemy supports." And does this tenet describe the perversity of
Bush-Bashing?
Bush should be bashed. He is a puppet of the Jews.
I'm not held to Mussolini's demagogueral definition of "fascism." He
was put out of business VERY QUICKLY. Today, in common usage, the term
"facist" transmutted to become an ubiquitous derogatory label - a
Here is a better quote from Orwell.
The villain of 1984 proclaims, "The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow
the
range of thought." He concludes, "The Revolution will be complete when
the
language is perfect."
stereotype. I agree with Orwell. Both Fascism and Nazism based their
demagoguery on the revolutionary ideology and tenets of Karl Marx's
Manifesto.
ADOLF HITLER
NUREMBERG
SPEECH OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1936
I CAN come to no terms with a Weltanschhauung [bolshevism] which
everywhere as its first act after gaining power is - not the
liberation of the working people - but the liberation of the scum of
humanity, the asocial creatures concentrated in the prisons - and then
the letting loose of these wild beasts upon the terrified and helpless
world about them....
Bolshevism turns flourishing countrysides into sinister wastes of
ruins; National Socialism transforms a Reich of destruction and misery
into a healthy State and a flourishing economic life....
Russia planned a world revolution and German workmen would be used but
as cannon-fodder for bolshevist imperialism. But we National
Socialists do not wish that our military resources should be employed
to impose by force on other peoples what those peoples themselves do
not want. Our army does not swear on oath that it will with bloodshed
extend the National Socialist idea over other peoples, but that it
will with its own blood defend the National Socialist idea and thereby
the German Reich, its security and freedom, from the aggression of
other peoples.... The German people as soldiers is one of the best
peoples in the world: It would have become a veritable 'Fight to the
Death Brigade' for the bloody purposes of these international
disseminators of strife. We have removed this danger, through the
National Socialist Revolution, from our own people and from other
peoples....
These are only some of the grounds for the antagonisms which separate
us from communism. I confess: these antagonisms cannot be bridged.
Here are really two worlds which do but grow further apart from each
other and can never unite. When in an English newspaper a
Parliamentarian complains that we wish to divide Europe into two
parts, then unfortunately we are bound to inform this Robinson Crusoe
living on his happy British island that - however unwelcome it may be
- this division is already an accomplished fact.... That one should
refuse to see a thing does not mean that it is not there. For many a
year in Germany I have been laughed to scorn as a prophet; for many a
year my warnings and my prophecies were regarded as the illusions of a
mind diseased....
Bolshevism has attacked the foundations of our whole human order,
alike in State and society, the foundations of our conception of
civilization, of our faith and of our morals: all alike are at stake.
If this bolshevism would be content to promote this doctrine in a
single land, then other countries might remain unconcerned, but its
supreme principle is its internationalism and that means the
confession of faith that these views must be carried to triumph
throughout the whole world, i.e., that the world as we know it must be
turned upside down. That a British headline-writer refuses to
recognize this signifies about as much as if in the fifteenth century
a humanist in Vienna should have refused to admit the intention of
Mohammedanism to extend its influence in Europe and should have
objected that this would be to tear the world asunder - to divide it
into East and West. Unfortunately I cannot escape the impression that
most of those who doubt the danger to the world of bolshevism come
themselves from the East. As yet politicians in England have not come
to know bolshevism in their own country; we know it already. Since I
have fought against these Jewish Soviet ideas in Germany, since I have
conquered and stamped out this peril, I fancy that I possess a better
comprehension of its character than do men who have only at best had
to deal with it in the field of literature.... I have won my successes
simply because in the first place I endeavored to see things as they
are and not as one would like them to be; secondly, when once I had
formed my own opinion I never allowed weaklings to talk me out of it
or to cause me to abandon it; and thirdly, because I was always
determined in all circumstances to yield to a necessity when once it
had been recognized. Today when fate has granted me such great
successes I will not be disloyal to these funda- mental principles of
mine....
.. . .: It is not necessary for me to strengthen the fame of the
National Socialist Movement, far less that of the German Army, through
military triumphs. He who is undertaking such great economic and
cultural tasks as we are and is so determined to carry them through
can find his fairest memorial only in peace.... But this bolshevism
which as we learned only a few months since intends to equip its army
so that it may with violence, if necessary, open the gate to
revolution amongst other peoples - this bolshevism should know that
before the gate of Germany stands the new German Army.... I believe
that as a National Socialist I appear in the eyes of many bourgeois
democrats as only a wild man. But as a wild man I still believe myself
to be a better European, in any event a more sensible one, than they.
It is with grave anxiety that I see the possibility in Europe of some
such development as this: democracy may continuously disintegrate the
European States, may make them internally ever more uncertain in their
judgment of the dangers which confront them, may above all cripple all
power for resolute resistance. Democracy is the canal through which
bolshevism lets its poisons flow into the separate countries and lets
them work there long enough for these infections to lead to a
crippling of intelligence and of the force of resistance. I regard it
as possible that then - in order to avoid something still worse -
coalition governments, masked as Popular Fronts or the like, will be
formed and that these will endeavor to destroy - and perhaps will
successfully destroy - in these peoples the last forces which remain,
either in organization or in mental outlook, which could offer
opposition to bolshevism.
The brutal mass-slaughters of National Socialist fighters, the burning
of the wives of National Socialist officers after petrol had been
poured over them, the massacre of children and of babies of National
Socialist parents, e.g. in Spain, are intended to serve as a warning
to forces in other lands which represent views akin to those of
National Socialism: such forces are to be intimidated so that in a
similar position they offer no resistance. If these methods are
successful: if the modern Girondins are succeeded by Jacobins, if
Kerensky's Popular Front gives place to the Bolshevists, then Europe
will sink into a sea of blood and mourning....
BTW, Hitler wrote the above quoted statement which also loudly
resounds the revolutionary imperative of Marx's Manifesto.
I forget what the statement was.
What you really mean you don't get the point at all.
No, I meant I forgot what the statement was.
No, I prefer you not spew, like a brainwashed clone, partyline
cliches.
why don't you read pre-WWII history from diverse and contradicting
sources for comprehensive understanding.
"Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon
the rubbish heap.
Fascism...does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and
anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini
In 1923 Mussolini was asked by an Italian encyclopedia person to
define and explain the word "Fascism" for their new edition. He said
the key concepts of fascism were overt nationalism, and repudiation of
liberalism in all its forms. "Fascism now throws the noxious theories
of so-called Liberalism upon the rubbish heap.
Fascism...does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and
anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini
You are brainwashed and have a stock full of cliches.
How do you know you are not brainwashed and full of cliches?
As I said before, follow the agenda and partyline of the neoMarxist,
pro-socialist factions within the Democrat party and YOU WILL FIND IT.
Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."
"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."
"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."
"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."
"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."
"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."
"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."
"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."
"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."
"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."
"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."
"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."
"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."
"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."
"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."
"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."
"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"
"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."
"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"
"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"
"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."
"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."
"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."
"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."
"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."
"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."
Seeking the Golden Mean is more enlightening, more liberating. If this
philosophical concept is beyond your comprehension, you'll be limited
to fallacious Either/Or cognition, and chronic fallacy in thinking is
a prime diagnostic indication of simplemindedness and/or of being
brainwashed.
What laws and policies make up the Golden Mean?
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "yaffaDina" |
|
| Title: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
24 Sep 2004 08:55:11 AM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
On 22 Sep 2004 14:25:23 -0700, (nan) wrote:
If it acts like a fascist/nazi antagonistic baiting storm trooper, no
matter what it call itself, it's a fascist/nazi.
The Jews control the media and tell their version of how people act.
Well, in that case, I can only say we're not doing a very good job of
it, are we?
yD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
24 Sep 2004 06:57:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:55:11 -0400, yaffaDina <yaffaDina2@aol.com>
wrote:
The Jews control the media and tell their version of how people act.
Well, in that case, I can only say we're not doing a very good job of
it, are we?
The policies of the USA are the policies of the Jews. The USA gives
billions of dollars to the Jew country and invades people the Jews
don't like.
The USA is for multi-culture and plurasim for Whites. But it gives
the Jews billions of dollars to have their own country. Jews control
the media and they control the culture. This is what Jews believe:
"One of the most astounding instances of Jewish hypocrisy was uttered
by
a Jew named Isi Leibler, who is no less than the chairman of the
governing board of the World Jewish Congress. Now Isi Leibler is
well-known as a powerful Jew in Australia, where he was for years the
official head of the Jewish community there. He now lives in Israel.
In
an interview with a Jerusalem newspaper, he stated about Israel "This
is
a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the
Jews." In an essay he wrote for the World Jewish Congress, he decried
intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews as a kind of racial suicide,
and
likened assimilation with non-Jews as a slow bleeding to death of the
Jewish people. He emphasized that focus of Israeli policy should be to
sharpen and intensify Jewish identity and that even giving up
territory
was acceptable if it meant getting rid of non-Jews and making Israel a
more nearly all-Jewish state. Leibler argues that post-Zionists
threaten
Israel when they publish textbooks that de-emphasize Jewish racial
interests and replace them with "universalist" history. In the
interview
mentioned, Leibler went so far as to say: "Multiculturalism has no
place
in Israel. Israel was created as a Jewish state for the Jews." That's
the Jew Isi Leibler talking about his own people's country, talking
about Israel. [Leibler, Isi: Is the Dream Ending? Post-Zionism and its
Discontents - A Threat to the Jewish Future, Institute of the World
Jewish Congress, Israel]
But what was Isi Leibler saying when he lived in Australia, a White
country, a non-Jewish country? What was Isi Leibler saying when he was
the head of Australia's powerful Jewish minority? Isi Leibler's advice
to Israel is to protect its racial and cultural heritage. Isi
Leibler's
advice to Jews is to avoid intermarriage. Isi Leibler thinks it's just
fine -- even necessary -- to separate non-Jews from Jews in Israel, to
get non-Jews on the other side of a well-defended border, to throw
them
out of Israel. But to Australians Isi Leibler played quite a different
tune. When Australian politician Pauline Hanson was galvanizing White
Australians in 1993 with her questioning of the wisdom of non-White
immigration to that country, Leibler warned that "extremists" were
threatening precious multiculturalism. He said: "There is a need to
sit
together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that
spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part
and
parcel of, and which is really under threat?" [Australian Herald-Sun,
September 27, 2000]
How much clearer does it have to be before you see it? Leibler and his
fellow powerful Jews want racial nationalism for their own people,
because racial nationalism makes them strong and ensures their
survival.
They want racial nationalism because they want their kind to survive
and
racial nationalism is the key to survival. They're not stupid. They
want
what is best for Jews.
But Leibler and his fellow powerful Jews don't want racial nationalism
for White people. In Australia and Europe and South Africa and the
United States -- wherever White people live -- Leibler and his kind in
Jewish organizations and in the Jewish-controlled media do everything
in
their power to destroy racial nationalism for White people, everything
in their power to keep us from having it, everything in their power to
make it disreputable and impossible and illegal. Just the other day,
Leibler said that one of the most important things in the world to him
was Israel's "right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state." [Israel
Insider, November 24, 2002] But Leibler and his co-racialists in the
Jewish ADL and other groups devote their lives and their billions to
preventing White people from claiming their right to sovereign White
states. Keeping Britain British, or keeping America American, or
keeping
France French, is anathema to them, it is the ultimate in evil and
they never let us forget that."
Kevin Alfred Strom
The National Alliance: <http://www.natvan.com>
<http://www.natall.com>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Leftist Fascist Speech/Thought Police & Revisionism |
23 Sep 2004 06:10:19 PM |
|
|
| | | | | |
