| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"dpr" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2003 06:57:55 PM |
| Object: |
The Left's Compassion Fascism |
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/compassion.php
The Left's Compassion Fascism
by John Hawkins
You rarely hear anyone question whether a liberal is compassionate or not do
you? While conservatives have to prove to a doubting public that they're not
heartless, liberals are just assumed to be philanthropic by default. Now why
is it that? It's because the liberals in the Democratic Party and in the
media have defined compassion in a way that serves their interests. Let's
look at this in a little more detail.
Why is that liberals will tell you that they're more compassionate than
conservatives? They'll tell you that liberals care about people, whereas
conservatives don't. Why? Because liberals support government funded social
programs that conservatives either won't support or support to a lesser
degree.
Now I have a question for you: Why does anyone think that taking money from
taxpayers, wasting an obscene amount of it, and then giving the money that's
leftover to other people who you hope will vote for you is compassionate?
What if I came over to your house tomorrow, took a hundred dollars out of
your wallet, gave $30 of it to a homeless guy I ran into across on the
street, and then asked him to vote for the candidate I support in the next
election? Do you think that would make me compassionate?
My answer to that would be no. In fact, I'd say it's wrong for someone to
take your money, give it to someone else, and claim to be compassionate
because of that. You see the liberals NEVER pay the bill for the compassion
that they claim to have. They always expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab
while they pick up the credit.
Furthermore, have you ever considered the consequences for the liberals
supposed compassion? Have you ever heard the old saying "Give a man a fish
and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime?"
Well you can add something to that saying. "Give a man a fish and he'll eat
for a day. Give him another fish and he'll eat tomorrow but he'll expect
another fish the next day, and the next day, and the next day. In fact, if
you give him fish for enough days in a row he may grow accustomed to the
idea of having you feed him for the rest of your life."
That's why we have to consider the negative of having a child grow up
dependent on government aid are. What about a kid who spends his whole
childhood watching his mother take food stamps and eating school lunches?
Don't you think it's likely that a lot of these kids are going to grow up
expecting the government to take care of them just like it always has?
Instead of believing that "when the going gets tough, the tough get going"
don't you think many of these kids think "when the going gets tough, quit
trying and wait for the government to take care of you?" That's the ugly
upshot of the liberal version of compassion.
You see, liberals believe the very people they claim to compassionately care
about are too stupid, irresponsible, and incompetent to take care of
themselves without the left's help. That's the real core reason why liberals
always seem to be in favor of expanding government power and increasing
taxes. It's because in their opinion, you're too much of a boob to make it
through the day without some liberal plotting out your every move. That's
why they think they have to take your money and spend it for you. You can
call that a lot of things, but to call it compassion is a misnomer if I've
ever heard one. In fact, I'd say compassion fascism fits the bill a lot
better.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
.
|
|
| User: "JoettaB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
28 Sep 2003 10:29:42 PM |
|
|
Don't feed the troll
--
JoettaB
--Ability is not determined by four walls.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
30 Sep 2003 10:47:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:57:55 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/compassion.php
The Left's Compassion Fascism
From Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
30 Sep 2003 11:55:46 PM |
|
|
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p6jknv8f6i8f43snmtudm0ith0k5b3rndg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:57:55 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
Nep you cannot avoid the fact that the American left is the
fascist/socialist side in American politics.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/compassion.php
The Left's Compassion Fascism
by John Hawkins
You rarely hear anyone question whether a liberal is compassionate or not do
you? While conservatives have to prove to a doubting public that they're not
heartless, liberals are just assumed to be philanthropic by default. Now why
is it that? It's because the liberals in the Democratic Party and in the
media have defined compassion in a way that serves their interests. Let's
look at this in a little more detail.
Why is that liberals will tell you that they're more compassionate than
conservatives? They'll tell you that liberals care about people, whereas
conservatives don't. Why? Because liberals support government funded social
programs that conservatives either won't support or support to a lesser
degree.
Now I have a question for you: Why does anyone think that taking money from
taxpayers, wasting an obscene amount of it, and then giving the money that's
leftover to other people who you hope will vote for you is compassionate?
What if I came over to your house tomorrow, took a hundred dollars out of
your wallet, gave $30 of it to a homeless guy I ran into across on the
street, and then asked him to vote for the candidate I support in the next
election? Do you think that would make me compassionate?
My answer to that would be no. In fact, I'd say it's wrong for someone to
take your money, give it to someone else, and claim to be compassionate
because of that. You see the liberals NEVER pay the bill for the compassion
that they claim to have. They always expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab
while they pick up the credit.
Furthermore, have you ever considered the consequences for the liberals
supposed compassion? Have you ever heard the old saying "Give a man a fish
and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime?"
Well you can add something to that saying. "Give a man a fish and he'll eat
for a day. Give him another fish and he'll eat tomorrow but he'll expect
another fish the next day, and the next day, and the next day. In fact, if
you give him fish for enough days in a row he may grow accustomed to the
idea of having you feed him for the rest of your life."
That's why we have to consider the negative of having a child grow up
dependent on government aid are. What about a kid who spends his whole
childhood watching his mother take food stamps and eating school lunches?
Don't you think it's likely that a lot of these kids are going to grow up
expecting the government to take care of them just like it always has?
Instead of believing that "when the going gets tough, the tough get going"
don't you think many of these kids think "when the going gets tough, quit
trying and wait for the government to take care of you?" That's the ugly
upshot of the liberal version of compassion.
You see, liberals believe the very people they claim to compassionately care
about are too stupid, irresponsible, and incompetent to take care of
themselves without the left's help. That's the real core reason why liberals
always seem to be in favor of expanding government power and increasing
taxes. It's because in their opinion, you're too much of a boob to make it
through the day without some liberal plotting out your every move. That's
why they think they have to take your money and spend it for you. You can
call that a lot of things, but to call it compassion is a misnomer if I've
ever heard one. In fact, I'd say compassion fascism fits the bill a lot
better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
01 Oct 2003 11:31:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:55:46 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p6jknv8f6i8f43snmtudm0ith0k5b3rndg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:57:55 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
Nep you cannot avoid the fact that the American left is the
fascist/socialist side in American politics.
That depends on how you define "left". Defining "fascist", and
"socialist" would also be influential.
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 sympathise 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 disolve 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 decadant as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/compassion.php
The Left's Compassion Fascism
by John Hawkins
You rarely hear anyone question whether a liberal is compassionate or not do
you? While conservatives have to prove to a doubting public that they're not
heartless, liberals are just assumed to be philanthropic by default. Now why
is it that? It's because the liberals in the Democratic Party and in the
media have defined compassion in a way that serves their interests. Let's
look at this in a little more detail.
Most capitalists defend Ebenzer Scrooge and see him as role model.
Why is that liberals will tell you that they're more compassionate than
conservatives? They'll tell you that liberals care about people, whereas
conservatives don't. Why?
Because conservatives don't.
Because liberals support government funded social
programs that conservatives either won't support or support to a lesser
degree.
Now I have a question for you: Why does anyone think that taking money from
taxpayers, wasting an obscene amount of it, and then giving the money that's
leftover to other people who you hope will vote for you is compassionate?
What if I came over to your house tomorrow, took a hundred dollars out of
your wallet, gave $30 of it to a homeless guy I ran into across on the
street, and then asked him to vote for the candidate I support in the next
election? Do you think that would make me compassionate?
My answer to that would be no. In fact, I'd say it's wrong for someone to
take your money, give it to someone else, and claim to be compassionate
because of that. You see the liberals NEVER pay the bill for the compassion
that they claim to have. They always expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab
while they pick up the credit.
Don't "liberals" pay taxes?
Furthermore, have you ever considered the consequences for the liberals
supposed compassion? Have you ever heard the old saying "Give a man a fish
and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime?"
Well you can add something to that saying. "Give a man a fish and he'll eat
for a day. Give him another fish and he'll eat tomorrow but he'll expect
another fish the next day, and the next day, and the next day.
So lets teach him to fish. Doesn't that take tax money?
In fact, if
you give him fish for enough days in a row he may grow accustomed to the
idea of having you feed him for the rest of your life."
That's why we have to consider the negative of having a child grow up
dependent on government aid are. What about a kid who spends his whole
childhood watching his mother take food stamps and eating school lunches?
Don't you think it's likely that a lot of these kids are going to grow up
expecting the government to take care of them just like it always has?
Instead of believing that "when the going gets tough, the tough get going"
don't you think many of these kids think "when the going gets tough, quit
trying and wait for the government to take care of you?" That's the ugly
upshot of the liberal version of compassion.
You see, liberals believe the very people they claim to compassionately care
about are too stupid, irresponsible, and incompetent to take care of
themselves without the left's help. That's the real core reason why liberals
always seem to be in favor of expanding government power and increasing
taxes. It's because in their opinion, you're too much of a boob to make it
through the day without some liberal plotting out your every move. That's
why they think they have to take your money and spend it for you. You can
call that a lot of things, but to call it compassion is a misnomer if I've
ever heard one. In fact, I'd say compassion fascism fits the bill a lot
better.
Spin
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
01 Oct 2003 09:40:48 PM |
|
|
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ndvlnv0lchs6dmm140oked569bjlimc3ov@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:55:46 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p6jknv8f6i8f43snmtudm0ith0k5b3rndg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:57:55 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
Nep you cannot avoid the fact that the American left is the
fascist/socialist side in American politics.
That depends on how you define "left". Defining "fascist", and
"socialist" would also be influential.
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.
You do not have a clue about. the right. The right feels that those issues
are for the states and the people of those states to address, and that they
are not federal issues.
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.
Leftists in America since the before the Civil War have not been concerned
about individual freedom. And since around 1900 the American left has given
up it's classical liberal roots, and embraced socialism/fascism.
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 decadant as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
Agree.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/compassion.php
The Left's Compassion Fascism
by John Hawkins
You rarely hear anyone question whether a liberal is compassionate or not
do
you? While conservatives have to prove to a doubting public that they're
not
heartless, liberals are just assumed to be philanthropic by default. Now
why
is it that? It's because the liberals in the Democratic Party and in the
media have defined compassion in a way that serves their interests. Let's
look at this in a little more detail.
Most capitalists defend Ebenzer Scrooge and see him as role model.
Why is that liberals will tell you that they're more compassionate than
conservatives? They'll tell you that liberals care about people, whereas
conservatives don't. Why?
Because conservatives don't.
Because liberals support government funded social
programs that conservatives either won't support or support to a lesser
degree.
Now I have a question for you: Why does anyone think that taking money
from
taxpayers, wasting an obscene amount of it, and then giving the money
that's
leftover to other people who you hope will vote for you is compassionate?
What if I came over to your house tomorrow, took a hundred dollars out of
your wallet, gave $30 of it to a homeless guy I ran into across on the
street, and then asked him to vote for the candidate I support in the
next
election? Do you think that would make me compassionate?
My answer to that would be no. In fact, I'd say it's wrong for someone to
take your money, give it to someone else, and claim to be compassionate
because of that. You see the liberals NEVER pay the bill for the
compassion
that they claim to have. They always expect the taxpayers to pick up the
tab
while they pick up the credit.
Don't "liberals" pay taxes?
Furthermore, have you ever considered the consequences for the liberals
supposed compassion? Have you ever heard the old saying "Give a man a
fish
and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a
lifetime?"
Well you can add something to that saying. "Give a man a fish and he'll
eat
for a day. Give him another fish and he'll eat tomorrow but he'll expect
another fish the next day, and the next day, and the next day.
So lets teach him to fish. Doesn't that take tax money?
In fact, if
you give him fish for enough days in a row he may grow accustomed to the
idea of having you feed him for the rest of your life."
That's why we have to consider the negative of having a child grow up
dependent on government aid are. What about a kid who spends his whole
childhood watching his mother take food stamps and eating school lunches?
Don't you think it's likely that a lot of these kids are going to grow up
expecting the government to take care of them just like it always has?
Instead of believing that "when the going gets tough, the tough get
going"
don't you think many of these kids think "when the going gets tough, quit
trying and wait for the government to take care of you?" That's the ugly
upshot of the liberal version of compassion.
You see, liberals believe the very people they claim to compassionately
care
about are too stupid, irresponsible, and incompetent to take care of
themselves without the left's help. That's the real core reason why
liberals
always seem to be in favor of expanding government power and increasing
taxes. It's because in their opinion, you're too much of a boob to make
it
through the day without some liberal plotting out your every move. That's
why they think they have to take your money and spend it for you. You can
call that a lot of things, but to call it compassion is a misnomer if
I've
ever heard one. In fact, I'd say compassion fascism fits the bill a lot
better.
Spin
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
03 Oct 2003 08:54:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:40:48 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
You do not have a clue about. the right. The right feels that those issues
are for the states and the people of those states to address, and that they
are not federal issues.
Leftists in America since the before the Civil War have not been concerned
about individual freedom. And since around 1900 the American left has given
up it's classical liberal roots, and embraced socialism/fascism.
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism
in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
two-and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with
the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of
charge in State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard
to marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be
educated by the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to
be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the
wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the
substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world
movement? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted
this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it
prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the
actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight
against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing
less than a Jewish International."
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 decadant as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
Agree.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 12:36:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:54:34 -0500, neptune3 wrote
(in message <6t9snv8cin2q545geplnsb7136lr3l6so9@4ax.com>):
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:
Ah, yes, Babykiller Goebbels.
Murdered his own six children.
And then pulled a hitler (doing the world
a gigantic favor and committing trashicide).
Adolf Braun-Hitler took a gun
and caressed it more and more.
And then, crying, she pulled the trigger
And then did ***** no moore.
So to speak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 11:26:57 AM |
|
|
Goebbels believed in death before dishonor. He knew the allies were
subhuman monsters. Of course it was better to be dead than in their
hands and that goes for his children too.
Here are some quotes published in 1946 by Dr. Austin J. App. He
was an American English professor that was drafted into the army:
"these beloved fellow-liberators of ours are doing well indeed,
They know why one wants Unconditional Surrender and why Americans
cried for a "harsh" peace against the Germans, and they understand the
spirit of the Morgenthau Plan: In Vienna alone they raped 100,000
women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their
teens, and aged women! So reported the Most Rev. Bernard Griffin,
British Archbishop (now cardinal) after a more or less official tour
to study conditions in Europe (NC Report, Oct. 18, 1945)."
"'We Allies are no monsters,' said Churchill to the Germans in
January, 1945...Since that time the Allies who are no monsters have
raped more Christian women than have literally ever before been raped
in the history of the world. They have put Germany on a 1300-calory
starvation level; they have looted twelve million people of their
homes, goods, food and even clothes and driven them from their
homelands; they have kept or taken one-fourth of their farm land and
their ships and their factories and most of their farm implements and
then told them to live by farming; they have abused and starved to
death more German babies than their ever were Jews in Germany; and
finally they raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German,
Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women from eight to eighty. They
brought to their death five times as many Germans in one year of peace
as died during five years of war! Yes, Yes, of course, 'We Allies are
no monsters!'"
"Time magazine (Oct. 2, 1945 p.27), describing the mass expulsion
'of at least nine million
Germans...it is a tale of horror, old men starving on the roads, yound
women raped in boxcars.'
And the holy crusaders who are doing this raping have the
shamelessness of trying whole classes of Germans as war criminals!"
" Sylvester C. Michelfelder, a Lutheran Pastor, just returned
from Germany describes in The Christian Century how 'Bands of
irresponsible bandits in Russian or American uniforms pillage and rob
trains. Women and girls are violoated in the sight of everyone. They
are stripped of their clothes.' Yes, the holy reeducators of Germany
are having a wonderful time!"
" In Stuttgart, troops under Eisenhower's command, with whom his
communications were not severed, raped more women in one week in one
city than troops under Hitler's command seem to have raped in four
years in all of France. For such literally seem to be the facts,
however discomforting to decent Americans."
" After four years of German occupation, Frederick C. Crawford,
President of Thompson Products, on January 4, 1945, in a 'Report from
the War Front,' where with others the War Department had taken him on
an inspection tour, said, 'the Germans tried to be careful in their
dealings with the people...We were told that if a citizen attended
strictly to business and took no political or underground action
against the occupying army, he was treated with correctness' (p.5) In
short, wherever Americans have been able to investigate for
themselves, they have found that however ruthless the Germans were
with resisters and saboteurs, they were uncommonly Christian and
decent towards the women of the conquered."
"'Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras
and Lugers' (N.Y. World Telegram, January 21, 1945)"
"Some of our own senators have declared this starvation
planned and deliberate. In fact, so determined are our policy makers
to starve the conquered that they have callously prohibited even
private charity. 'For the first time in the history of Christian
nations', writes Bishop Aloisius Muench of Fargo, North Dakota,
'powerful governments are making the exercise of Christian charity
impossible through official regulations' (One World in Charity, Lent,
1946, p.1)"
"Nevertheless, in spite of this deliberately planned or
encouraged, and certainly tolerated debauchery of German and Austrian
women by occupation troops under American command, the American and
the British occupation cannot be compared to the shocking beastliness
of the Russian occupation...we who screamed when the Germans executed
the British-sent murderers of a governor and their concealers at
Lidice, and don't raise a wimper when the Russians violate a million
women and hundreds of nuns!"
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 09:42:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:26:57 -0500, neptune3 wrote
(in message <rtstnvonoqng0apgh67ie4j1c5o35p3r4n@4ax.com>):
Goebbels believed in death before dishonor.
I sure wish you did.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
command. Very often, that individual is crazy. -Author Unk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 02:03:24 AM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BBA3C67C0001E7B91290A1C0@news.giganews.com...
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:54:34 -0500, neptune3 wrote
(in message <6t9snv8cin2q545geplnsb7136lr3l6so9@4ax.com>):
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:
Ah, yes, Babykiller Goebbels.
Murdered his own six children.
See look what he has in common with leftists like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 11:28:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:03:24 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
See look what he has in common with leftists like you.
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism
in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
two-and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with
the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of
charge in State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard
to marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be
educated by the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to
be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the
wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the
substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world
movement? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted
this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it
prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the
actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight
against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing
less than a Jewish International."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 02:56:20 PM |
|
|
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7ttnvgcqtirfnh8rjs5gc5fhcv22n8205@4ax.com...
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:03:24 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
See look what he has in common with leftists like you.
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,
And you are anti-Jew, so typical of a modern day American leftist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
05 Oct 2003 05:44:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:56:20 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you are anti-Jew, so typical of a modern day American leftist.
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/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
06 Oct 2003 01:16:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:44:49 -0500, neptune3 wrote
(in message <8l71ovk6dafg58rpvmrmi4ka2r3a145et1@4ax.com>):
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:56:20 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you are anti-Jew, so typical of a modern day American leftist.
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
Nice article (except as noted below).
It's somewhat sad to see that only the majority of Jews (and not Christians)
believe in the same government as did Thomas Jefferson.
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
[groan]
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.
Following is a list of organizations dedicated to the proposition that Adolf
Braun-hitler was Eva's main squeeze and that she helped him when he wasn't
able to think, that dolphie-baby was really into female domination.:
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
dontchaknow
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
06 Oct 2003 07:25:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 1:16:03 -0500, Gray Shockley
<gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote:
Nice article (except as noted below).
It's somewhat sad to see that only the majority of Jews (and not Christians)
believe in the same government as did Thomas Jefferson.
Following is a list of organizations dedicated to the proposition that Adolf
Braun-hitler was Eva's main squeeze and that she helped him when he wasn't
able to think, that dolphie-baby was really into female domination.:
Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:
"German women, German men !
It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the
Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women.
Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not
forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National
Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily
politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very
unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic
intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not
respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the
woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different
value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German
woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best
sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other
areas than the man.
The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but
also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in
the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices
and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best
suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless
devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.
The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the
past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea
of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread
winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the
man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is
not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her
talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the
frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men
were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to
the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men
always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all
great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination
have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually
loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the
woman.
It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must
be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our
attitude toward women.
The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in
government, politics, economics and social relations has not left
women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought
impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some
good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that
are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations
have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set
in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a
distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with
former ideals.
A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary
and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most
suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious
duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can
continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of
the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the
builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's
source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place
for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,
in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that
those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in
the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their
abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other
ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially
reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to
fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.
The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.
It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no
intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer
and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.
But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in
motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the
living mother of a family who gives the state children.
German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning
to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more
rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected
to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and
her daily bread is not a good trade.
A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in
our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now
the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most
evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's
birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without
emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The
government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the
resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental
change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is
responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying
about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each
elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by
1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are
the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it
will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine
the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.
We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our
national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The
national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation
on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the
woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends
to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of
our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our
blood is assured..."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: re: The Left's Compassion |
06 Oct 2003 09:40:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:25:26 -0500, neptune3 wrote:
Has it ever been decided whether Goebbels
gets credit for killing two nazi's or eight?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: re: The Left's Compassion |
07 Oct 2003 11:37:58 AM |
|
|
"One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can hardly
prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless. "
Goebbels
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Fair and Balanced Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 03:21:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:56:20 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7ttnvgcqtirfnh8rjs5gc5fhcv22n8205@4ax.com...
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:03:24 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
See look what he has in common with leftists like you.
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,
And you are anti-Jew, so typical of a modern day American leftist.
This scumbag isn't a leftist. He's one of your boys, Dana.
-
'A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is
very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle
over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays
without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing
for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic
terrors are an abundant source of gain.'
Anatole France
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 03:47:31 PM |
|
|
"The Fair and Balanced Weasel" <zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote in
message news:buaunvk959gsh1ngr4b5ordmcr8k98bvij@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:56:20 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7ttnvgcqtirfnh8rjs5gc5fhcv22n8205@4ax.com...
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:03:24 -0800, "dpr" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
See look what he has in common with leftists like you.
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels,
And you are anti-Jew, so typical of a modern day American leftist.
This scumbag isn't a leftist. He's one of your boys, Dana.
Wrong again zepp, like you usually are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 10:24:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:28:11 -0500, neptune3 wrote
(in message <c7ttnvgcqtirfnh8rjs5gc5fhcv22n8205@4ax.com>):
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Because he also killed their six children and his wife died with them as joey
goebbels committed stupidicide, would you say that goebbels was to be
congratulated for killing two nazi's or eight?
Remember that Adolf Braun-hitler only got credit for killing two pieces of
nazi slime so think carefully before you score these entities who chose
dishonor in the 1920's.
Of course, joey "the gob" goebbels was instrumental in turning over half of
Europe and one-half of Germany over to Stalin - joey the gob has just got to
be a hero of the soviet union.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one
individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take
command. Very often, that individual is crazy. -Author Unk
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
05 Oct 2003 05:48:35 PM |
|
|
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:
We had no idea of the danger that threatened us then. I myself did not
yet know Marxism well enough to foresee the possible consequences. I
shrugged my shoulders as I read the dark prose of the red press and
awaited expectantly the decisive evening.
Around 8 p.m. we drove in an old rusty car from the city center to
Wedding. A cold gray mist hung under a starless sky. Our hearts were
bursting with impatience and expectation.
As we drove down Müllerstraße it was already clear that the evening
did not bode well. Groups of dark figures stood on every street
corner. They apparently planned to teach our party members a bloody
lesson before they even got to the meeting.
Dark masses of people stood outside the Pharus Hall, expressing their
rage and hate with loud and impudent threats.
The leader of the protective forces cleared a way for us and reported
briefly that the hall had been packed since 7:15 p.m. and had been
closed by police. About two-thirds of the audience were Red Front
Fighters. That was what we wanted. There would be a decision. We were
ready to give it all we had.
Entering the hall, we encountered a warm, stiffling aroma of beer and
tobacco. The hall was hot. A lively roar of voices filled the hall.
People were packed in tightly. We reached the podium only with
difficulty.
No sooner was I recognized than hundreds of voices filled with rage
and revenge thundered in my ears: "Bloodhound! Murder of Workers!"
Those were the mildest words they shouted. But a welcoming group of
some party members and S.A. Men answered with passion. Excited battle
cries sounded from the platform. I saw immediately that we were a
minority, but a minority determined to fight, and therefore win.
It was still our custom then for an S.A. leader to chair all of the
party's public meetings. Here too. Tall as a tree he stood up front
and asked for silence with his upraised arm. That was easier said than
done. Mocking laughter was the answer. Insults flew toward the
platform from every corner of the room. People growled and screamed
and raged. There were world revolutionaries scattered about who
apparently had gained the courage they needed by drinking. It was
impossible to quiet the hall. The class-conscious proletariat had not
come to discuss but to fight, to break things up, to put an end to the
Fascist specter with callused workers' fists.
We were not uncertain, even for a moment. We also knew that if the
enemy did not succeed this time in what he had threatened, the future
success of the movement in Berlin was assured.
Fifteen or twenty S.A. and S.S. men stood before the platform in
uniforms and arm bands, an impudent and direct provocation to the Red
Front Fighters. Behind me was a select group of reliable people ready
at any moment to risk their lives to defend me from the onrushing red
mob with brutal force
The Communists made an obvious mistake in their tactics. They had
scattered small groups throughout the hall, but clumped most of the
rest in the right rear of the hall. I recognized immediately that
there was the center of unrest, and if anything was to be done, we
first had to deal ruthlessly with them. Whenever the chair tried to
open the meeting, a dark chap stood up on a stool and shouted "Point
of Order!" Hundreds of others yelled the same after him.
If one takes from the mass their leader or also their seducer, they
are leaderless and easily controlled. Our tactic therefore was to
silence this cowardly troublemaker at any cost. He felt secure back
there, surrounded by his comrades. We tried to do this peacefully a
few times. The chair shouted over the uproar: "There will be
discussion afterward! But we determine the rules of order!"
That was an ineffective attempt at an unsuitable object. The screamer
wanted to throw the meeting into confusion by his endless shouts and
bring things to the boiling point. Then a general melee would result.
As our efforts to bring the meeting to order peacefully proved
unsuccessful, I took the head of the defensive forces to the side, and
immediately after groups of his men slipped through the thundering
Communist masses. Before the astonished and surprised Red Front troops
realized what was happening, our comrades had hauled the troublemaker
down from his stool and brought him through the raging crowd to the
podium. That was unexpected, but what followed was no surprise. A beer
glass flew through the air and crashed to the floor. That was the
signal for the first major meeting hall battle. Chairs were broken and
legs ripped from tables. Glasses and bottles suddenly appeared and all
hell broke loose. The battle raged for ten minutes. Glasses, bottles,
table and chair legs flew randomly through the air. A deafening roar
rose; the red beast was set free and wanted its victims.
At first it looked as if we were lost. The Communist attack was sudden
and explosive, completely unexpected. But soon the S.A. and S.S. men
distributed throughout the hall and in front of the platform recovered
from their surprise and counterattacked with bold courage. It quickly
became clear that although the Communist Party had masses behind it,
these masses became cowards when faced with a firmly disciplined and
determined opponent. They ran. In short order the red mob that had
come to break up our meeting had been driven from the hall. The order
that could not be secured by good will was gained by brute force.
Usually one is not aware of the stages of a meeting hall battle. Only
later does one recall them. I still remember a scene that I will never
forget; on the podium stood a young S.A. man whom I did not know. He
was hurling his missiles into the on-coming red mob. Suddenly a beer
glass thrown from the distance hit him on the head. A wide stream of
blood ran down his face. He sank with a cry. After a few seconds he
stood up again, grabbed water bottle from the table and threw it into
the hall, where it clattered against the head of an opponent.
The face of this young man is engraved in my memory. This
lightening-fast moment is unforgettable. This gravely-wounded S.A. man
would soon, and indeed for all times, become my most reliable and
loyal comrade.
Only after the red mob had been driven howling, growling and cursing
from the field could one tell how serious and costly the battle had
been. Ten lay in their blood on the platform, most with head injuries,
two with severe concussions. The table and stairs to the platform were
covered in blood. The whole hall resembled a field of ruins.
In the midst of this bloody and ruined wasteland, our tree-high S.A.
leader resumed his place and declared with iron calm: "The meeting
will continue. The speaker has the floor."
Never before or since have I spoken under such dramatic conditions.
Behind me, groaning in pain and bleeding, were seriously injured S.A.
comrades. Around me were broken chair legs, shattered beer glasses and
blood. The whole meeting was icily silent.
We lacked then a medical corps. Since we were in a proletarian
district, we had to have our seriously wounded carried out by
so-called worker volunteers. There were scenes outdoors of
unimaginable inhumanity. The bestial people who were supposedly
fighting for universal brotherhood insulted our poor and defenseless
injured with phases like: "Isn't that pig dead yet?"
Under such conditions it was impossible to give a coherent speech.
Scarcely had I begun to speak when another group of volunteers entered
the hall to carry off a seriously wounded S.A. man on a stretcher. One
of them, encountering the brutal apostles of humanity outside the door
and their unflattering and crude language, shouted for me in
desperation. His voice could be heard loudly and unmistakably on the
platorm I interrupted my speech and went through the hall, where there
were still scattered Communist commando groups. Still surprised by
what had happened, they stood quietly and shyly to the side. I bade
farewell to the seriously wounded S.A. comrades.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
06 Oct 2003 01:18:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:48:35 -0500, neptune3 wrote:
Here is a quote from "The Battle for Berlin" by Joseph Goebbels:
"Oops"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
04 Oct 2003 02:21:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 2:03:24 -0500, dpr wrote
(in message <vnsrp5onkfq992@corp.supernews.com>):
"Gray Shockley" <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BBA3C67C0001E7B91290A1C0@news.giganews.com...
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:54:34 -0500, neptune3 wrote
(in message <6t9snv8cin2q545geplnsb7136lr3l6so9@4ax.com>):
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:
Ah, yes, Babykiller Goebbels.
Murdered his own six children.
See look what he has in common with leftists like you.
Godwin's Law invoked on Dipper.
But only because - shall we say - s/he/it/they
have "issues" with reality.
dpr is in violation of Godwin's Law.
Does anyone think he should be "shunned"?
You want to compare combat time, little name-caller?
You want to talk about all you've done for your country your entire life?
And capping it off with your erratic, bungling writing which has to be
translated into English.
Is that your problem, Boy?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Does dpr stand for "Dip, Really?"
If you want to call names, Punk,
give it your best shot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: The Left's Compassion Fascism |
29 Sep 2003 08:04:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:57:55 -0800, "dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/compassion.php
The Left's Compassion Fascism
"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.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
