| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Godzilla Pimp" |
| Date: |
05 Dec 2006 09:02:44 AM |
| Object: |
Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
Yes. We are bunch of wimps now, the doormats of the world. Women should
never have been given the vote.
GP
.
|
|
| User: "thats@fact" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
05 Dec 2006 09:12:51 AM |
|
|
Godzilla Pimp wrote:
Yes. We are bunch of wimps now, the doormats of the world. Women should
never have been given the vote.
Move to Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iran. After all, holding women
down has worked out so well for those countries. Why do you hate
America?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
05 Dec 2006 07:19:11 PM |
|
|
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
And feminism is Jewish:
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio
# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)
Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria, Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl
Friedan, the mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist,
best-selling author, professor, a founder of the National Organization
for Women (NOW), the National Women's Political Caucus, and the First
Women's Bank, researcher, journalist, Democrat, clinical psychologist,
and grandmother, Betty Friedan was the most influential feminist of
the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and others as an "initiator
of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings and lectures,
including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live and work... When the war against fascism ended two decades
later, four million women lost their jobs to returning GIs. Women were
again told that their place was in the home. The freedom to work to
build up and defend their nation was over. Men would earn the family's
bread. What the boys needed was a warm place to come home to every
night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some of the values
toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen, church) as
the Nazis they thought they had defeated...
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 05:58:45 AM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
<snip>
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
So, let's get this straight. Who are you more afraid? Women or Jews?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 06:41:56 AM |
|
|
a =E9crit :
Topaz wrote:
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
<snip>
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
So, let's get this straight. Who are you more afraid? Women or Jews?
He's a gay nazi... how classic...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 07:41:16 PM |
|
|
"The text of this web page was originally published by the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum as a pamphlet titled "Homosexuals:
Victims of the Nazi Era".
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,
100 Raoul Walenberg Place SW,
Washington D.C. 20024-2150.
As part of the Nazis' attempt to purify German society and propagate
an "Aryan master race," they condemned homosexuals as "socially
aberrant." Soon after taking office on January 30, 1933, Hitler banned
all homosexual and lesbian organizations. Brownshirted storm troopers
raided the institutions and gathering places of homosexuals. Greatly
weakened and driven underground, this subculture had flourished in the
relative freedom of the 1920s, in the pubs and cafes of Berlin,
Hamburg, Munich, Bremen, and other cities."
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 02:15:52 PM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
kyldltn@yahoo.com a =E9crit :
Topaz wrote:
The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.
In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.
<snip>
Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.
So, let's get this straight. Who are you more afraid? Women or Jews?
He's a gay nazi... how classic...
Godzilla Pimp: (Daintily waves his hankie) "Yoohoo, Hitler!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 07:42:03 PM |
|
|
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."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 07:40:34 PM |
|
|
This speech delivered by Dr. Walter Grob, the head of the Nazi Party's
Office of Racial Policy. He was speaking to a women's meeting at the
Gau Party Rally in Cologne on 13 October 1934. After this speech I
will make my comment on it.
My Dear German Women and Girls!
When Germans come together today to discuss the things that concern us
both as individuals and as a nation, it is a solemn occasion, whether
we wish it to be or not. During the political struggles of the past,
we could speak of party programs or of civilization without any
involvement of our soul.
Now we have forgotten how to approach an issue merely with our
understanding, merely with our mouth, merely with our heart. We have
become whole people once again. When we speak with others, we do so
with our full being.
That is what made the movement strong, and great, and powerful from
its first days. It is also that which the enemy on this side of the
border and the other cannot understand, and which it hates with deadly
strength. As this great and beautiful people's movement began, so too
began a hard and bitter struggle between enemy and German forces,
between an old world that is really long dead and buried, and the new
world that is struggling to reach the light through us. This struggle
has been going on in people's hearts and souls for years, and is
nowhere near its end. The world finds it difficult to understand that
which is at the center of our endeavors:
The value of blood and race.
Our enemies first laughed in pity, then in hatred as we spoke of it.
Let us speak of what we National Socialists mean by that so that it
will become clear why the German woman may be even more concerned
about these matters than the man, his state, and his fighting
organization can be.
There was a time in the past when we were untrue, untrue in the
deepest sense. We were untrue not to other people, or parties, or
states, or kings, but untrue to something far greater, untrue to the
laws of life. As long as the world exists, as long as life grows,
flourishes and perishes, so long will this life have the urge to live
on into the future and win new territory. Whether plant or animal or
man-as we, or I, or you:
wherever there is life, it has the longing to bring forth new life.
It should be unnecessary to speak of such things. We speak of them
only because for a few decades a crazy era ignored, blasphemed and
mocked these greatest, most beautiful and purest dreams of life. This
was an age that made the idol of money supreme and said: "The world
should be governed not be what serves life, rather by what some fool
of an accountant decides is best." We know the results. The great laws
of life were evaluated according to money sacks and checkbooks. When
we think back on our parents, grandparents and great grandparents,
there were many children in the house. It may have been crowded and
hard financially, but we were happy, perhaps because there were so
many of us in so large a family. But the time came when people said:
"As man or woman, as parents or teachers of leaders, you have the duty
to show the people the way to a better future." That better future,
people thought, could only be a richer future, a future in which the
individual had more money. And when they were asked where this money
would come from, a false teaching arose in the last century: "The
fewer people there are, the more an individual child can inherit from
his parents." He who loves his children and wishes a prosperous future
for his nation should therefore see to it that Germany's population is
small, and that only a few children continue the family after he is
gone. That was the terrible teaching of birth control, which Marxism
preached and the bourgeois followed. No one dared stand against it.
That was the doctrine that made us what we are today:
a dying people,
in which fewer children are born each year, in which today more people
die each year than are born. This all was supposed to lead to a happy
future. It understood happiness only in terms of possessions. It was
therefore inherently false. But even in its own terms it was false,
for it forgot something:
When a people begins to die, when a people no longer obeys the laws of
life, when a people values money more than its existence and
posterity, this people is on the path to disaster, both historically
and politically. Within a few decades it will be dead, oppressed by
other peoples who are stronger, closer to life, and who follow life's
laws better than we.
If present trends continue, by the end of the century Germany will be
a nation with only 40-50 million inhabitants,
and we know that on our borders other peoples are growing quickly and
strongly. Sooner or later, these other peoples will come in conflict
with a shrinking and dying German people, and the result of the
supposed doctrine of happiness will be a hard and bitter
national death for our children.
Those who believed that they can give their children a happy and
peaceful future by reducing the number of children err deeply. They
give the children only the promise of a hard and bitter struggle for
Germany's existence as a state and as an idea.
Today when we work to show people that the ideas of yesterday are
false, that the state and nation cannot do without the family, that
the family cannot exist without children, and when we not only provide
economic support to make it easier to begin families and have
children, but also tell people again and again of the sanctity of life
and the necessity of continuing our people into the future, our
enemies on both sides of the border suddenly have insults and hateful
things to say about us. They wish to disturb our work. Suddenly there
are voices saying: "National Socialism's doctrines are inhumane and
barbaric. National Socialism's views on children turn people into
breeding animals. When it says
that it is the duty of men and women to continue the eternal chain of
life, a chain that begins in the distant past and continues into the
future, a chain of which we are only a link leading into the distant
future,
our enemies on both sides of the border claim: "You reject the dignity
and value of humanity. National Socialism holds that men and women
have no value other than that of breeding cattle." It is a shame that
we have to respond to such words, but it is necessary because our
enemies have always tried to persuade women to oppose us, even though
what we say is rooted in the souls of the men and women we speak to.
This is our response: "You are mistaken in accusing us of thinking
that the only purpose of humanity is to continue the species by
passing on our blood to future generations. We know the other values.
We support them and find wherever we can those values that the
individual shows in his work and selfless service. We know well enough
that
each person lives a double life. The first is the one he lives between
birth and death. We are to do as much as we can to make this life
rich, to accomplish that which is good and beautiful, to use our
strengths and gifts for others. That is the duty of the individual.
But as a person you are something more:
You are a member of the chain of life, a drop in the great bloodstream
of your people.
There too you have duties and obligations before the eternity of the
nation. You have the duty to pass on what you received from your
parents and ancestors. I do not believe that such behavior, which
obeys both the laws of reason and of life, is barbaric, hateful or
inhumane. I believe instead that the barbarism is to be found in the
years we have left behind us, when any dirty lout could besmirch the
most valuable, holy life of a man or women in their families, or drag
children through the filth, without anyone defending their culture
against such an attack.
I believe that when we tell people once more of the great value of
blood, and remind them that they have duties not only for the 60-year
span in which they work and serve, but also to the millennia of the
past from which we come and to the millennia of the future to which we
are heading, then we are giving them higher values than those of
yesterday. Let me say also, however, that it is wrong if someone
thinks that only those who found families and bear children are
valuable to our state. We know that is not so. We know there are
reasons why some people leave their people's flow of blood. We know
that some are denied what the nation places great value on. We do not
ignore them or think ourselves their betters. We only say this: "My
friend, you and I must do our duty to our people, and when we cannot
fulfill it in one way, then we must do what we can with even greater
energy and devotion.
When you do your duty, you are one of us,
we extend our hand to you, we honor your humanity and your service for
Germany. Let us work together so that in the future, as many people as
possible will be able to serve the nation in both ways.
That is a piece of the thinking of blood and race that National
Socialism has taught us. And there is another aspect. When we see
people today, we can recognize that we are not all alike. There are
differences in value;
each person does not have the same value as everyone else.
In the past, people believed that these differences were superficial,
the result of the environment in which one grew up. People believed
that what became of a person depended primarily on the house he grew
up in or in his social environment, or the class he came from. They
believed that a person born in a slum, surrounded by shadows, troubles
and poverty, a child lacking in love and affection, could only become
a second-class human being, a physically and psychologically ill
member of the society, someone failed by the society and the state.
One thought that a child growing up in such slum inevitably became
sick, or even criminal. It was because he grew up in such a poor
environment. The Marxists claimed that if every child in Germany grew
up in an environment that gave him all he needed, he would inevitably
become a useful, decent, upright, proud and honest adult. After a few
years or decades, the entire German people would consist of such
decent and useful people. In the past people believed the environment
was responsible even when a person failed miserably.
We recall the days of delirium, when millions of unemployed had been
thrown on the street by a sick political and economic system, made
superfluous. A single person pried the tracks apart and derailed a
train in the middle of the night. Within a minute he murdered 30
innocent people who had never done anything to him, and stole their
money. And what did the world of yesterday say? "He can't help
himself. He is a victim of circumstances. He has Beethoven's hands and
an artistic temperament. We need not put him on the gallows or in
prison to protect us and our children. No, this poor Schlesinger is
only sick because of his environment. Put him in a modern sanitarium,
give him what he needs: radio, a library, a smoking salon, a language
teacher, a pastor, a newspaper room, give him everything he needs to
put him in touch with better things. In a few years, this mass
murderer of 30 people will leave as an ideal human being, so pure and
innocent that one can put him in charge of a kindergarten." That's
what people thought in the past.
Today that seems a bad joke to us, a crazy fantasy, but a few years
ago it was government policy in Germany. Those who did well under such
policies and have joined to fight us think that they can accuse our
doctrines of blood and race as barbaric.
Why do we see things differently? Because we have learned something:
In the end, you are not as important and significant as you thought
yesterday;
your strength and abilities are not as great as you believed during
the liberal era. Oh yes, it was a lovely dream to say: "I will do with
my life what I want, and if I happen to be a teacher, I will teach
what I want, and do what I enjoy, and what I think right." Well, that
was your idea of the environment.
We are a bit more modest, a bit more humble before the laws of fate.
We have learned that what I can do for myself or what you can do for
yourself, or what we can all do to each other, is not as important, or
as deep, as that which a greater power has already done to us. It is
that power that even before our birth gave us a part of our nature,
and laid out our path for us in the world. Here are joined two things:
the knowledge of modern science and the sensitivity and understanding
of a humble person. Suddenly we see that:
What you are, what I am and what I can be in my life is in part
predetermined by that which I have inherited.
If my inheritance is good and strong, and if I am true to it and
develop what is within me, my life will be successful, and perhaps of
benefit and joy to others. If such an inheritance is denied me, or if
for some inexplicable reason fate has given me other, perhaps weak,
perhaps even bad traits, I can struggle against them for my entire
life, and will still not be able to rid myself of that which slumbers
in me because of the actions of a higher power.
We see then that a good part of a people's history is determined by
what it has inherited. If we ask what sorts of physical or
intellectual traits these may be, or what groups there are, we will
see that each people has three groups. The first is a large group of
people with average gifts, the most of us who are able to deal with
the normal problems life presents us with. Next there is a very small
group. This group has received a better inheritance than most of us,
not because of any particular virtue on its part, but simply because
of fate. The leaders of humanity, those who build states, lead people,
or touch the soul, come from this group. And there is a third small
group with particular traits, also not their fault: those who are sick
or genetically defective. They are not up to the challenges of life,
and need outside help to survive.
As humanity of a nation goes through the centuries, the decisive fact
is which of these three groups is the strongest. One might say: "That
is not a question at all. The strongest will win, the group from which
the leaders come. This superior group has to be the strongest in the
end, it must gradually have its way." Well, that is how things would
be without people, if people with their little brains did not believe
that they could change the laws of life given to the world by heaven.
Man has interfered in these matters. He has tried to change the laws
of struggle and existence and selection. Those were ancient laws of
life, to which men too were subject:
That which cannot meet the challenges dies.
That is hard, perhaps, but it is also the way that nature makes life
stronger and better. Man has tried more and more to abolish these
laws. He has kept life going by using artificial means in cases where,
left to itself, it would have ended. He used all his understanding,
love and sympathy to keep a person alive, even when it is no joy, but
only a burden and misery. We now keep thousands, even tens of
thousands of unhappy creatures alive through artificial means, those
to whom life itself has denied the right to life. But keeping them
alive was not itself the problem. What is worse is that they were
given the opportunity to pass on their unfortunate physical and mental
characteristics. That was the worst that happened: we took the
physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically defective criminals
and not only kept them alive and cared for them-that is our duty as
human beings, which we certainly do not want to ignore in the future
either-and gave them the ability to have children with the same
deficiencies, thus doubling or multiplying their misery. The German
people do not know the extent of this misery, it does not know the
depressing spirit of the homes where thousands of cripples live their
lives only by being fed and cared for, poor creatures who are worse
than any animal. The animal at least is as it should be. These poor
creatures are distortions of life, no joy either to themselves or
others. They are a burden throughout their miserable existences, but
thanks to the selfless care and devotion of those who care for them
may live 60, 70 or 80 years. The German people do not realize the
enormous sums that have been spent for decades, money that is taken
from those who are healthy, who could do something useful, but cannot
because the money is lacking.
There was a winter in which children in Bavaria did not even have
wooden shoes to wear as they walked through the snow on their way to
school. They had to walk for hours bare-footed. At the same time, the
government made sure that those unfortunate souls in a large
institution had fresh bananas twice a week so that they got the
necessary vitamins. But these vitamins could not give them joy or
strength or health. But they were thus denied to those somewhere in
the Bavarian forest, or in the Ruhr, or in a poor fishing village on
the Frisian coast, where they could have reduced the poverty and need
in some worker's house. At the same time there was a case where
a single mentally ill Negro of English citizenship lived for 16 years
in an institution in Berlin, costing 26,000 Marks.
26,000 Marks were thrown away on a life that had no meaning. 26,000
Marks that could have been used to prepare a dozen strong, healthy and
gifted children for life and a job.
But I am not speaking of this as a kind of theft. Money is not an end
in itself. Rather, we have here committed a theft of spirit and soul,
because we tried to persuade the nation and humanity that our own
greatness could come from sacrificing for the worst and most helpless.
In the end, we went so far as
to put the sick and the dying before the young, strong, healthy and
promising.
That is against nature and life. A nation going this way is heading
for the abyss. We went so far as to preach year after year to healthy
families that they should have no children, or at most one, else they
sinned against the nation and the spirit of this enlightened age. But
if some imbecile of a ***** and a genetically ill criminal had
children, they were not only a financial burden for their entire
lives, but also took the labor of people who our society gave nothing
better to do than to change these poor creatures three times a day and
feed them. That is a perversion of everything great and healthy, and
is a sin against life and the spirit of creation.
With full knowledge of our duties as human beings and the requirements
of pity, we made the decision not to allow such miserable creatures to
pass on their misery to the next generation, multiplied perhaps two or
three or more times. That is a major accomplishment, for which our
children and their children will one day thank us.
I know that there are those who will say: "You are meddling in matters
that are not your concern. You are interfering in an area outside
human control. Life and death are not in the hands of man, but in
those of a higher power. If God wants sick and genetically ill people
to be born, you may not interfere through laws, operations, or any
other measures with God's will. And if you do so-and you have with
your Law to Prevent Inherited Illness-then you are acting against the
will of God, and you are heretics."
This is our answer: "My friend, you are wrong. It is true that we are
subject to a higher power. We humans may never interfere with the
great laws of the Creator. But you are wrong. See the laws the Creator
has established for his world and your life. The great law is that
life must be able to preserve itself, and that if it cannot, it will
collapse. It is the hard, brutal law of the struggle for existence and
of selection and extinction. It was the law we saw day by day, hour by
hour, under all the clouds of heaven and all the stars of the sky, in
which life seemed to find a senseless death, whether plant or animal
or person, whether in distant Africa or near us.
That which cannot meet the challenges of life dies, no matter how much
pain it causes,
and even if your small understanding or mind cannot comprehend it,
these are the great laws of life and the world that God himself gave
us. These are the laws, my German friend, that in our crazy fantasies
we broke in the past."
With overweening human pride and false pity, we broke the great law
and kept those alive who under the laws of God would long since have
perished.
Today we are once more following these old laws, using humane methods,
for they follow a more hard and brutal course in nature according to
God's will. We are doing nothing more than reestablishing the laws of
creation, and bowing to the heavenly order. We are thus showing piety
and true humility-you are the heretics.
This applies as well to the third and last principle of our racial
thinking. This third and last principle is that the people on this
world, in America, Africa or China, are different both in body and
soul. They are not equal, as yesterday's lie had it.
People are different.
They not only speak different languages and look different: no, they
are different in the depths of their hearts and natures, and in their
abilities for good and evil. In the past people believed that these
differences were accidental, the result of climate or civilization,
and that one could overcome these differences and create a unified man
in a unified state in which all would be equally happy. We have
learned that such ideas are false. We have learned that the
differences between the major blood groups of the world, between the
major races, are not the result of human action, but of the laws of
Creation. We have learned that the lines between blood and blood, race
and race, are also the lines between soul and soul and spirit and
spirit. We have learned that the opposite of the old phrase "What God
has brought together, let no man put asunder" is also true. We have
learned:
What God has separated, man should not bring together.
Heaven thought it good not to have only one type of people on the
earth, but different kinds, various racially-bound peoples. That is a
part of Creation. We bow before this truth and respect the borders.
That means that the foundation of our separation of the races is not a
matter of politics or economics, rather it rests on a higher level, to
which we in the end are responsible.
In our Reich, we are separating that which belongs to us, because it
is blood of our blood, from that which does not belong to us, because
it is foreign. We are doing that which is right not only for the
moment, but for eternity.
Believe me, my dear German fellow citizens, it is not true, as some
say, that this doctrine is a sign of arrogance or superiority or
boasting. We do not think ourselves better than the other races on the
earth. No, we do not think ourselves better, nor do we believe that
others are worse than we are. We insist only on one thing-a law
established by the Creator himself:
Man differs from man and race from race in this world.
The others may not be better or worse, but they are different than we
are, and because they are different than we are, there is a kind of
wall between us that is part of the laws of life. That is the core of
National Socialism's racial thinking. Our goal is not to insult
others, to say: "What a great guy I am!" Rather, we hold to the humble
recognition that each healthy piece of life has its corner of the
world, and its special tasks. This is just as true of humans as it is
of plants and animals in all their multiplicity. We know that one type
is no more valuable than another. But we also know that each variety
of life has a right to existence only as long as it keeps itself pure
and strong. Only when a tree bears the proper fruit does it have a
right to live. Otherwise it will be cut down and destroyed. We do not
know why things are the way they are, and it would be foolish to ask
the reason. That is how things are. Our task is to humbly accept the
laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that we
are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos. That is not
because of our virtues, nor it is our fault, nor was it our will. It
was fate that came from above. We have no choice but to accept this
fate and to develop the abilities that fate has given us according to
necessity and law.
Others may develop in their own way, in their own land. We must listen
to the depths of our own people, to draw from blood and inheritance
the strength we need to build our homeland. A higher power will take
care of the life beyond.
I believe, my dear German fellow citizens, that everyone who is of our
spirit will grant the correctness of our thinking about blood and
race, and will say: "I see now that you are not only on the right
path, but are honest and in the deepest sense true to demands that are
greater than the laws of man."
Let us then together follow the path to a new worldview. Let us go the
path of blood and race, which does not ignore faith and knowledge and
a sense of higher powers. Let us go this path, not a path of matter,
superstition and heresy, rather a path of deep humility and piety
before the laws of God. Let us go along this path together and listen
to the deepest depths where blood and soul rule. Let us draw from
there the strength to build the state, and even more important the
Reich. It will be a Reich not only of politics, a Reich of
organization, or the economy, but a Reich of people. Germany today has
the fortune to find a new way, led by a great Fuehrer. German women
today have the good fortune to see a strong and loyal woman at their
head. Let us together go forward, hand in hand, as befits comrades
building the future, and let us join the strength of men and women,
rooted deep in their blood, to build what the world has never before
seen:
The holy Reich of the German soul.
Heil!
My comment:
In the past there was survival of the fittest and humans evolved
into higher beings with that. But it was a cruel world. Notice in the
above speech that he did say:
"we took the physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically
defective criminals and not only kept them alive and cared for
them-that is our duty as human beings, which we certainly do not want
to ignore in the future either"
Survival of the fittest should be replaced by sterilization. We would
still evolve into higher beings, but this way is much more humane.
We should take care for those who need help and many work hours
would be done to provide for them, and all we ask in return is for
them not to pass their misfortune onto more generations. We are not
asking too much at all.
It was a great speech. These policies that would make a nation
unimaginably great, a heaven on earth. Heil Hitler.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcus Aurelius" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
05 Dec 2006 01:06:00 PM |
|
|
Republican values, equal rights and responsibilities regardless of
gender, have been rejected by women in democratic societies as inimical
to the special interests of women and the privileges over men that they
enjoy. Women in democratic countries have rejected the idea of the
"social contract". That is every citizen should have equal rights and
equal responsibilities and that privilege within a society should only
accrue to citizens who have done some note worthy public service such
as military service especially in war time.
Thus, in Western socities, women have betrayed the democratic and
republican revolutions that were initiated by the American Revolution
and have destroyed the framework for effective government and society.
If women and their male supporters had supported trully egalitarian and
republican principles as per the above, the noteworthy decline of
western socities, economically, socially, politically, and culturally
would not have occured.
Rather, the base and weak have obtained political power and within the
same Western societies; and, the same have, inherently, lost the means,
motive, and opportunity to retain those rights, freedoms, and
opportunities inherent in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "VanShania" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
05 Dec 2006 02:00:18 PM |
|
|
I've noticed men always blame women for a lot of problems. At work, I've
seen guys yell at women but never yell at men. I think there are a lot of
guys with personal problems and they don't understand why. Its probably has
to do with anger pent up inside due to an abusive childhood. What people
need to do is understand what love is(best way is to imagine how much you
would love your son. And if you can't feel true love for your kids, then you
got problems), and there would be a lot less killing going on.
--
Love and Teach, Not Yell and Beat
Stop Violence and Child Abuse.
No such thing as Bad Kids. Only Bad Parents.
The most horrible feeling in the world is knowing that No One is There to
Protect You.
A64 3500+, Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939,AIW 9800 Pro 128mb
MSI 550 Pro, X-Fi, Pioneer 110D, 111D
Antec 550 watt,Thermaltake Lanfire,2 Gb OCZ Platinum 2-3-2-5
2XSATA 320gb Raid Edition, PATA 120Gb
XP MCE2005, 19in Viewsonic,BenchMark 2001 SE- 19074
Games I'm Playing- Falcon 4, winSPWW2, winSPMBT, Call of Duty War Chest
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 07:03:15 PM |
|
|
VanShania wrote:
I've noticed men always blame women for a lot of problems.
I've noticed some women frequently blaming men for all the problems.
At work, I've seen guys yell at women but never yell at men.
At work, I've seen women yell at men and at women, and especially at
women because many of the yelling women suffer from massive "queen bee"
syndrome.
I think there are a lot of guys with personal problems and they don't understand why.
I think the same is true of lots of women.
Its probably has to do with anger pent up inside due to an abusive childhood.
Why do you suppose angry women are angry?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whip nowhere@none" |
|
| Title: Re: Has feminism made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 07:00:25 PM |
|
|
The ragheads and jews, know how to treat women.
"Godzilla Pimp" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:oSfdh.7069$ql2.4247@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yes. We are bunch of wimps now, the doormats of the world. Women should
never have been given the vote.
GP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libs Just Dont Get It!" |
|
| Title: Re: political correctness made Western societies submissive? |
06 Dec 2006 07:07:18 AM |
|
|
wasnt feminism
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
