Nazi Greens

Politics > Politics-USA > Nazi Greens

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah"
Date:	26 Dec 2003 03:34:14 AM
Object:	Nazi Greens

Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah's Anti-Racism List presents:
THE NAZI GREEN PHENOMENON
-*-
You may also want to see my Anti-Racist Resources List.
http://www.geocities.com/g848138/anti-racist.txt
-*-
My Encounter
With A 'Nazi Green'
by Judson Cox
During the '2000 elections, I was enrolled as a student at the University Of
Georgia. During a presidential election, a large university campus is a
fascinating place to be. It is a microcosm of political views, ranging from
the mainstream to the absurd. During the election season, I was involved
with both Republican and Libertarian club events, though the colorful
activities of other political factions did not escape my attention. The
daily panorama of politics ranged from Libertarian gun raffles, which
succeeded in raising funds and generating media attention, to parades of
Greens, with their threats of violence, their costumes, and their typically
macabre signs decrying capitalism, environmental destruction, and the
military. There were also the banal activities of the Gore/Lieberman
supporters, and the politically incorrect witticisms that have come to be
expected from College Republicans.
The smaller organizations ranged from racial identity groups, hardcore
communists, holdout supporters of Jell-O Biafra, and Frank Zappa For
President boosters (surely a boon for the running mate, as Zappa had
recently expired). There was even a loose-knit cadre of anarchists and
Marxists who leafleted and spray-painted the campus with the message:
"Pigasus For President." I assume that this was not the same pig that the
Yippies ran against President Nixon. Given that many in this group
identified themselves as witches, however, I will not rule out reanimation.
Not long before the election madness, I met a girl who gave me a unique
insight into the Left. When I met this girl, who shall remain unnamed, she
was not committed to any political ideology. She was an unusually bright
girl; attractive and well humored, with a scathing wit. We spent a good deal
of time together. But at some point after our meeting, she began a strange
transformation. Gradually, her mood darkened; her humor became far more
negative and surfaced less frequently. She began avoiding political
discussions. Eventually, she admitted to me that she had become a Nazi (yes,
an actual Hitler-quoting Nazi).
Of course, I tried to dissuade her. I did my best to explain the failures of
socialism, and to defend the Jewish people. I attempted both reason and
emotion. I debunked the "Protocols Of The Wise Men Of Zion" as Czarist
propaganda, and I countered the conspiracy theories concerning the
Rothchilds and Israel. I listed the great accomplishments of famous Jews. I
even convinced her that science, philosophy, religion, art, economics, and
literature have all been greatly furthered by Jewish accomplishments. Though
it was all for naught. She had surrounded herself with charismatic Nazis,
and had been thoroughly persuaded by their lies. It was the end of our
friendship.
Time passed, and we traveled in different circles. It was not until the
'2000 election that our paths crossed again. I spotted her among a mob of
Green Party members who were agitating to get Ralph Nader on the ballot. At
the time, I hoped Nader would be to Al Gore what Ross Perot was to George
Bush, so I approached her and offered to sign her petition.
"Hey, ____," I said, "I thought you were a Nazi; what are you doing
supporting Nader?"
"I am a Nazi," she replied, "That's why I'm supporting Nader."
I must have looked a bit puzzled, because she continued, "What do you think
Nazism is? It's National Socialism. Only we don't support any one nation. We
want an end to all capitalist governments, and the environmental destruction
they entail. Also, we're all against the Jews. The Jews run everything; they
are responsible for capitalist exploitation and environmental destruction.
They are responsible for poverty, war, and global warming. What they are
doing to Palestine, they will do to all of us if we let them."
"So," I asked in disbelief, "the Green Party is anti-Semitic?"
"Most of us are," she replied, "Some of us even call ourselves 'Nazi Greens,
' especially in Europe."
"You are insane," I told her, as I walked away, feeling nauseous.
This exchange helped me understand what would otherwise be a puzzling
phenomenon. That is, in the past few years, the Left has grown increasingly
anti-Semitic. On its face, this just does not make sense. Jews are generally
associated with liberal causes, yet modern liberalism is growing less
accepting of Jews. The work of western intellectuals like Edward Said,
longtime champion of radical Palestinians, is partly to blame for the Left's
increasing anti-Semitism; but this problem reaches far beyond the
Palestinian cause. The Leftwing movement that began with Israeli divestment
campaigns (which equate Israel to Apartheid South Africa) on college
campuses has grown to the point where the phrase "Zionist conspiracy" is a
virtual shibboleth (if you will pardon the expression).
The rise of anti-Semitism on the Left came to a head following the September
11th terror attacks. With the appearance of books claiming to prove that
Israel was behind the attacks, the Zionist conspiracy became common
currency. Liberal websites and leaders spread this message, until blatant
anti-Semitism became commonplace at every war protest. Leftwing, Francophile
protesters brandished placards blaming the world's ills on Jews, while their
French counterparts defaced synagogues and graves, and attacked Jews in the
streets.
This tide of sentiment is not limited to young radicals. Indeed, there is
now a veritable cottage industry in which lawyers, led by the ACLU, make a
living defending those who seek to, or who actively encourage, killing Jews
in Israel and abroad. More and more, the Left makes it clear that the only
religion of which they approve is the one that preaches the killing of Jews
(and Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.)- radical Islam.
Even among mainstream democrats, anti-Semitism is not condemned. When Jesse
Jackson used the slur, "hymie town," a single liberal did not denounce him,
nor was Al Sharpton rebuked when he said he would not tolerate a Hadassah
(Lieberman's wife) in the White House. And Hillary Clinton is forgiven for
reportedly calling ***** Morris a "Jew *****." The "Zionist conspiracy" is
even being leveled against the Bush administration as the term
"neoconservative" has resurfaced as a synonym for 'Jewish conservative.'
From the radical fringe to the highest ranks of the Democratic Party, the
Left claims that the Bush administration is nothing more than Israel's pawn.
I do not pretend that my experience with a Nazi turned Green is evidence
that all Greens are Nazis; I am sure many are not. I also do not believe
that all liberals are anti-Semitic, nor that all liberals are tolerant of
anti-Semites. Evidence, however, does prove that anti-Semitism on the Left
is increasingly common. What was formerly agreed to be the most egregious
evil of the twentieth century is now embraced and tolerated by many of the
most influential leaders and constituencies of the Left. As an active
Republican and committed conservative, I can attest that anti-Semitism is
not tolerated on the Right. Other conservatives would roundly condemn any
Republican who expressed such bigoted rhetoric.
The same simply cannot be said of the Left. To gauge how dangerous this
situation is, consider this: If a leader were to arise- a man who was a
vegetarian, a radical environmentalist, a tea-drinking, nature worshipping,
anti-smoking fanatic, a socialist, a proponent of abortion and of medical
research utilizing fetal tissue, a man who would outlaw speech and ideas
that are politically incorrect, an animal rights activist, a controversial
artist and writer, and a pagan whose harshest rhetoric was directed against
Jews and Christians- he could, with the requisite charisma, quickly rise to
leadership in the Green Party. Indeed, such a man would find few critics
among Democrats, and would be widely applauded by the faculty at most
American colleges.
Only a few decades ago, such a man did exist, and he did become the leader
of a modern nation. That man was Adolph Hitler.
Judson Cox is a political columnist from the mountains of North Carolina. As
a college student, and Director of Communication for the Foundation for
Conservative American Values, he has a unique perspective on matters of
politics, economics, and culture.
http://politicallyright.com/article149.htm
-*-
But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could
have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is
fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we
speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists,
collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability
activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is
associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to
get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a
psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.
http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una1.html#section2
-*-
It has only been the last several years that articles addressing the
Nature-Loving and Nature-Preserving policies of the NSDAP have appeared in
print. Even so, there is a juvenile and shortsighted tendency among those
who are still "right-thinking" to oppose anything mentioning the environment
because "The Left" supports such issues. This is funny considering that some
critics of the Third Reich have highlighted the NSDAP's Green tendencies and
compared the "Nazis" to Hippies and New Agers! Of course all of this is due
to people who can only think in dualistic terms and have not grasped the
Third Position.
http://www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html
-*-
"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life,
leads to humankind's own destruction and to the death of nations. Only
through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people
be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of
our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life
as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of
life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the
deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."
http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
-*-
Berlin, Germany: Two academics warn that the German Green Party is echoing
neo-fascist ideas by promoting native plants.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0GER/2001_Spring/74925397/p1/article.jht
ml
-*-
A quote from PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk (Washington Post, November 13,
1983), shows how far a biocentric view can lead to moral relativism and
disregard for human suffering: "Six million Jews died in concentration
camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter
houses."
http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0207/0479.html
-*-
"Blood and Soil" by Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell's Blood and Soil is a strange, rare little book.I might never
have heard of it, had I not seen it cited in abibliography of a book on the
S.S.
Richard Walther Darre (1895-1953) was Hitler's Agriculture Minister until
1941. He was also a major figure in the Nordic racialist movement, and was
one of those people who was responsible for the "pagan" wing of the Nazi
Party.
I got hold of this book expecting it to be just another book on the "evils"
of the Nordic Renaissance. I was surprised, however, to read a book that
shed light on the fact that the Nordic movement was far more complicated
than the "blond hair-blue-eye-let's-breed-superpeople syndrome" so often
found in the American press.
Ms. Bramwell writes about many figures in the movement, such as Paul
Schultze-Naumberg a nd his wife, Hans F.K. Gunther, Bernhard Kummer, Johann
van Leers and L.F. Clauss. I learned a lot about how the Nordic ideal was
just that, an ideal, and that not all Nordics were supposed to be blond, for
instance. Nordicism encompassed more than just a "racial" stereotype. It was
a temperament, a way of life, a philosophy. It was a back-to nature
movement, that stressed temperance and healthy living.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0946041334/
-*-
The mix of mysticism, romanticism, and pseudo-environmentalist concerns
propagated
by Steiner and his cohorts brought anthroposophy into close ideological
contact
with a grouping that has been described as the green wing of National
Socialism.29
This group, which included several of the Third Reich's most powerful
leaders,
were active proponents of biodynamic agriculture and other anthroposophist
causes. The history of this relationship has been the subject of some
controversy,
with anthroposophists typically denying any connection whatsoever to the
Nazis. To understand the matter fully, it is perhaps best to set it in the
context of anthroposophy's attitude toward the rise of fascism.
http://maalainen.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_maalainen_archive.html
-*-
Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess coined the term "deep ecology" in 1972 to
express the idea that nature has intrinsic value, apart from its usefulness
to human beings. This distinction between a biocentric and human-centered --
anthropocentric -- perspective has been hotly debated in the environmental
movement ever since. In its most extreme form, a biocentric perspective
leads to utter disregard for human welfare. David Foreman, the founder of
the deep ecology organisation appropriately named Earth First!, notoriously
called for humanitarian organisations to sit back and watch Ethiopians
starve to death during the famine of 1987: "The worst thing we could do in
Ethiopia is to give aid [to the starving children] -- the best thing would
be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let people there just
starve."
Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of the anti-fur animal rights organisation PETA
sees people as parasites. "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the
biggest blight on the face of the earth," she told Reader's Digest in June
1990. In 1983 she explained to the Washington Post that the lives of
individuals have no value, only the survival of the species: "I am not a
morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence
for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space
where I am."
Although the terrorist fringe of the environmental movement usually is
labelled left-wing, it has more in common with the green wing of the German
Nazi party. The fact that radical environmentalists are also staunch
anti-capitalists does not necessarily place them in the left-socialist camp.
The National Socialists where also strongly anti-capitalist. The Nazi's
disregard for the individual and preoccupation with race is well known, but
that this also had a distinctively green twist is less appreciated.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/070202M.html
-*-
Adolf Hitler was the first world leader to establish any kind of systematic
environmental policy, and his record has since not been matched by any of
the "moral" Western leaders of today. We must ask ourselves whether we value
cheap industrial products more than having a non-toxic, non-carcinogenic
natural environment in which to live, breathe, breed and die.
http://www.nazi.org/library/environment.html
-*-
End of Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah's Anti-Racist Report on the Nazi Greens.
Dec. 25, 2003
--
Pro-War religious fanatics in government:
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Lieberman, Ridge, Cheney and
Bush
http://www.geocities.com/g848138/
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Nazi Greens	26 Dec 2003 09:59:34 AM

Ahn;
You have hit upon what I call the heart of leftism. in my youth, I was for
many years in the US Army, in Germany, when REAL Nazi's were everywhere. As
my grandparents were German, I got to know many of them over a few beers,
and for a short time, worked with the Bundeswehr, within a couple years of
it's creation. I was there when they cut the borders, built the barriers and
the Berlin Wall.
Later, I worked for a German Chemical Company, and I was there when they
tore the wall down and opened the borders. Twice, I've rented a car, driven
through the old east Germany, all the way to the Oder River, stopped in the
cities and small towns, and met the people. The old communists mostly speak
excellent English, own the businesses, have the money. So I think I have a
somewhat unique perspective.
I call them "leftists" as thats about as broad a term as I believe you can
place
on their many, many names. They seem to be able to fool themselves by
changing the names of their organizations, hiding all their past failures.
As example, your young lady, claiming to be a Nazi, says but without
"nationalism"? But Adolf Hitler, the very name of his party, which is in
English "The National Socialist German Workers Party." had very firm racial
beliefs, in addition to hatred of Jewry. Nazism, without "A Nation" is
simply socialism, hiding under yet another name. To be a real Nazi, you
simply must believe that
Germanic peoples are a race superior to all others.
I would argue that old Adolf did'nt really care if he won power on the left
or the right, only turned right after the Munich Putsch failed, but thats
another story.
Now old Joe Stalin also (amonst many other people) murdered uncounted jews.
I think Joe and Adolf would have been great friends, had they been able to
work out who the big boss was!(:-) But Joe could have taught Adolf much in
the science of mass murder! Adolf spend a lot of effort. Joe? He just forgot
to send food, and let nature take it's course.
Now, it is very strange in our country today, that the leftists, who have
claimed to be the great protectors of all minorities for decades, now attack
a minority, the Jews!(:-)
It is strange, is'nt it, that suddenly, attacking Jews becomes "politically
correct"
and they all fall into the party line. I don't think I could live in such a
world.
I like to ***** too much!(:-) Not to mention thinking for myself!
Have a great holiday season.!
"Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah" <ahn-fyuh-wi-dizayah@thegreatslashtubitch.org> wrote
in message news:qgTGb.40$9W5.3@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Georgia. During a presidential election, a large university campus is a
fascinating place to be. It is a microcosm of political views, ranging

from

the mainstream to the absurd. During the election season, I was involved
with both Republican and Libertarian club events, though the colorful
activities of other political factions did not escape my attention. The
daily panorama of politics ranged from Libertarian gun raffles, which
succeeded in raising funds and generating media attention, to parades of
Greens, with their threats of violence, their costumes, and their

typically

macabre signs decrying capitalism, environmental destruction, and the
military. There were also the banal activities of the Gore/Lieberman
supporters, and the politically incorrect witticisms that have come to be
expected from College Republicans.

The smaller organizations ranged from racial identity groups, hardcore
communists, holdout supporters of Jell-O Biafra, and Frank Zappa For
President boosters (surely a boon for the running mate, as Zappa had
recently expired). There was even a loose-knit cadre of anarchists and
Marxists who leafleted and spray-painted the campus with the message:
"Pigasus For President." I assume that this was not the same pig that the
Yippies ran against President Nixon. Given that many in this group
identified themselves as witches, however, I will not rule out

reanimation.

Not long before the election madness, I met a girl who gave me a unique
insight into the Left. When I met this girl, who shall remain unnamed, she
was not committed to any political ideology. She was an unusually bright
girl; attractive and well humored, with a scathing wit. We spent a good

deal

of time together. But at some point after our meeting, she began a strange
transformation. Gradually, her mood darkened; her humor became far more
negative and surfaced less frequently. She began avoiding political
discussions. Eventually, she admitted to me that she had become a Nazi

(yes,

an actual Hitler-quoting Nazi).

Of course, I tried to dissuade her. I did my best to explain the failures

socialism, and to defend the Jewish people. I attempted both reason and
emotion. I debunked the "Protocols Of The Wise Men Of Zion" as Czarist
propaganda, and I countered the conspiracy theories concerning the
Rothchilds and Israel. I listed the great accomplishments of famous Jews.

even convinced her that science, philosophy, religion, art, economics, and
literature have all been greatly furthered by Jewish accomplishments.

Though

it was all for naught. She had surrounded herself with charismatic Nazis,
and had been thoroughly persuaded by their lies. It was the end of our
friendship.

Time passed, and we traveled in different circles. It was not until the
'2000 election that our paths crossed again. I spotted her among a mob of
Green Party members who were agitating to get Ralph Nader on the ballot.

the time, I hoped Nader would be to Al Gore what Ross Perot was to George
Bush, so I approached her and offered to sign her petition.

"Hey, ____," I said, "I thought you were a Nazi; what are you doing
supporting Nader?"

"I am a Nazi," she replied, "That's why I'm supporting Nader."

I must have looked a bit puzzled, because she continued, "What do you

think

Nazism is? It's National Socialism. Only we don't support any one nation.

want an end to all capitalist governments, and the environmental

destruction

they entail. Also, we're all against the Jews. The Jews run everything;

they

are responsible for capitalist exploitation and environmental destruction.
They are responsible for poverty, war, and global warming. What they are
doing to Palestine, they will do to all of us if we let them."

"So," I asked in disbelief, "the Green Party is anti-Semitic?"

"Most of us are," she replied, "Some of us even call ourselves 'Nazi

Greens,

' especially in Europe."

"You are insane," I told her, as I walked away, feeling nauseous.

This exchange helped me understand what would otherwise be a puzzling
phenomenon. That is, in the past few years, the Left has grown

increasingly

anti-Semitic. On its face, this just does not make sense. Jews are

generally

associated with liberal causes, yet modern liberalism is growing less
accepting of Jews. The work of western intellectuals like Edward Said,
longtime champion of radical Palestinians, is partly to blame for the

Left's

increasing anti-Semitism; but this problem reaches far beyond the
Palestinian cause. The Leftwing movement that began with Israeli

divestment

campaigns (which equate Israel to Apartheid South Africa) on college
campuses has grown to the point where the phrase "Zionist conspiracy" is a
virtual shibboleth (if you will pardon the expression).

The rise of anti-Semitism on the Left came to a head following the

September

11th terror attacks. With the appearance of books claiming to prove that
Israel was behind the attacks, the Zionist conspiracy became common
currency. Liberal websites and leaders spread this message, until blatant
anti-Semitism became commonplace at every war protest. Leftwing,

Francophile

protesters brandished placards blaming the world's ills on Jews, while

their

French counterparts defaced synagogues and graves, and attacked Jews in

the

streets.

This tide of sentiment is not limited to young radicals. Indeed, there is
now a veritable cottage industry in which lawyers, led by the ACLU, make a
living defending those who seek to, or who actively encourage, killing

Jews

in Israel and abroad. More and more, the Left makes it clear that the only
religion of which they approve is the one that preaches the killing of

Jews

(and Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.)- radical Islam.

Even among mainstream democrats, anti-Semitism is not condemned. When

Jesse

Jackson used the slur, "hymie town," a single liberal did not denounce

him,

nor was Al Sharpton rebuked when he said he would not tolerate a Hadassah
(Lieberman's wife) in the White House. And Hillary Clinton is forgiven for
reportedly calling ***** Morris a "Jew *****." The "Zionist conspiracy"

even being leveled against the Bush administration as the term
"neoconservative" has resurfaced as a synonym for 'Jewish conservative.'
From the radical fringe to the highest ranks of the Democratic Party, the
Left claims that the Bush administration is nothing more than Israel's

pawn.

I do not pretend t at my experience with a Nazi turned Green is evidence
that all Greens are Nazis; I am sure many are not. I also do not believe
that all liberals are anti-Semitic, nor that all liberals are tolerant of
anti-Semites. Evidence, however, does prove that anti-Semitism on the Left
is increasingly common. What was formerly agreed to be the most egregious
evil of the twentieth century is now embraced and tolerated by many of the
most influential leaders and constituencies of the Left. As an active
Republican and committed conservative, I can attest that anti-Semitism is
not tolerated on the Right. Other conservatives would roundly condemn any
Republican who expressed such bigoted rhetoric.

The same simply cannot be said of the Left. To gauge how dangerous this
situation is, consider this: If a leader were to arise- a man who was a
vegetarian, a radical environmentalist, a tea-drinking, nature

worshipping,

anti-smoking fanatic, a socialist, a proponent of abortion and of medical
research utilizing fetal tissue, a man who would outlaw speech and ideas
that are politically incorrect, an animal rights activist, a controversial
artist and writer, and a pagan whose harshest rhetoric was directed

against

Jews and Christians- he could, with the requisite charisma, quickly rise

leadership in the Green Party. Indeed, such a man would find few critics
among Democrats, and would be widely applauded by the faculty at most
American colleges.

Only a few decades ago, such a man did exist, and he did become the leader
of a modern nation. That man was Adolph Hitler.

Judson Cox is a political columnist from the mountains of North Carolina.

a college student, and Director of Communication for the Foundation for
Conservative American Values, he has a unique perspective on matters of
politics, economics, and culture.

http://politicallyright.com/article149.htm

-*-

But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism

could

have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is
fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When

speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists,
collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability
activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is
associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to
get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a
psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.

http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/una1.html#section2

-*-

It has only been the last several years that articles addressing the
Nature-Loving and Nature-Preserving policies of the NSDAP have appeared in
print. Even so, there is a juvenile and shortsighted tendency among those
who are still "right-thinking" to oppose anything mentioning the

environment

because "The Left" supports such issues. This is funny considering that

some

critics of the Third Reich have highlighted the NSDAP's Green tendencies

and

compared the "Nazis" to Hippies and New Agers! Of course all of this is

due

to people who can only think in dualistic terms and have not grasped the
Third Position.

http://www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html

-*-

"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of

life,

leads to humankind's own destruction and to the death of nations. Only
through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our

people

be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of
our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather

life

as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of
life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the
deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."

http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

-*-

Berlin, Germany: Two academics warn that the German Green Party is echoing
neo-fascist ideas by promoting native plants.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0GER/2001_Spring/74925397/p1/article.jht

ml

-*-

A quote from PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk (Washington Post, November 13,
1983), shows how far a biocentric view can lead to moral relativism and
disregard for human suffering: "Six million Jews died in concentration
camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter
houses."

http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0207/0479.html

-*-

"Blood and Soil" by Anna Bramwell

Anna Bramwell's Blood and Soil is a strange, rare little book.I might

never

have heard of it, had I not seen it cited in abibliography of a book on

the

S.S.

Richard Walther Darre (1895-1953) was Hitler's Agriculture Minister until
1941. He was also a major figure in the Nordic racialist movement, and was
one of those people who was responsible for the "pagan" wing of the Nazi
Party.

I got hold of this book expecting it to be just another book on the

"evils"

of the Nordic Renaissance. I was surprised, however, to read a book that
shed light on the fact that the Nordic movement was far more complicated
than the "blond hair-blue-eye-let's-breed-superpeople syndrome" so often
found in the American press.

Ms. Bramwell writes about many figures in the movement, such as Paul
Schultze-Naumberg a nd his wife, Hans F.K. Gunther, Bernhard Kummer,

Johann

van Leers and L.F. Clauss. I learned a lot about how the Nordic ideal was
just that, an ideal, and that not all Nordics were supposed to be blond,

for

instance. Nordicism encompassed more than just a "racial" stereotype. It

was

a temperament, a way of life, a philosophy. It was a back-to nature
movement, that stressed temperance and healthy living.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0946041334/

-*-

The mix of mysticism, romanticism, and pseudo-environmentalist concerns
propagated
by Steiner and his cohorts brought anthroposophy into close ideological
contact
with a grouping that has been described as the green wing of National
Socialism.29
This group, which included several of the Third Reich's most powerful
leaders,
were active proponents of biodynamic agriculture and other anthroposophist
causes. The history of this relationship has been the subject of some
controversy,
with anthroposophists typically denying any connection whatsoever to the
Nazis. To understand the matter fully, it is perhaps best to set it in the
context of anthroposophy's attitude toward the rise of fascism.

http://maalainen.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_maalainen_archive.html

-*-

Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess coined the term "deep ecology" in 1972 to
express the idea that nature has intrinsic value, apart from its

usefulness

to human beings. This distinction between a biocentric and

human-centered --

anthropocentric -- perspective has been hotly debated in the environmental
movement ever since. In its most extreme form, a biocentric perspective
leads to utter disregard for human welfare. David Foreman, the founder of
the deep ecology organisation appropriately named Earth First!,

notoriously

called for humanitarian organisations to sit back and watch Ethiopians
starve to death during the famine of 1987: "The worst thing we could do in
Ethiopia is to give aid [to the starving children] -- the best thing would
be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let people there just
starve."

Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of the anti-fur animal rights organisation

PETA

sees people as parasites. "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the
biggest blight on the face of the earth," she told Reader's Digest in June
1990. In 1983 she explained to the Washington Post that the lives of
individuals have no value, only the survival of the species: "I am not a
morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence
for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank

space

where I am."

Although the terrorist fringe of the environmental movement usually is
labelled left-wing, it has more in common with the green wing of the

German

Nazi party. The fact that radical environmentalists are also staunch
anti-capitalists does not necessarily place them in the left-socialist

camp.

The National Socialists where also strongly anti-capitalist. The Nazi's
disregard for the individual and preoccupation with race is well known,

but

that this also had a distinctively green twist is less appreciated.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/070202M.html

-*-

Adolf Hitler was the first world leader to establish any kind of

systematic

environmental policy, and his record has since not been matched by any of
the "moral" Western leaders of today. We must ask ourselves whether we

value

cheap industrial products more than having a non-toxic, non-carcinogenic
natural environment in which to live, breathe, breed and die.

http://www.nazi.org/library/environment.html

-*-

End of Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah's Anti-Racist Report on the Nazi Greens.
Dec. 25, 2003

--
Pro-War religious fanatics in government:
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Lieberman, Ridge, Cheney and
Bush

http://www.geocities.com/g848138/

User: "neptune3"
Title: Re: Re: Nazi Greens	26 Dec 2003 01:54:10 PM

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:59:34 GMT, <nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

changing the names of their organizations, hiding all their past failures.

On April 10, 1938 the Germans voted for or against Hitler. 99% of
them voted for Hitler. Here are some quotes from a pamphet urging them
to vote for Hitler:
Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
social and economic collapse that would lead to chaos? Tens of
thousands of factories had closed their gates. Millions of workers and
employees lost their jobs and were thrown ruthlessly into the gray
misery of mass unemployment. There seemed no way out...
By the end of 1933, 2 million citizens had jobs again. By September
1936, the number of unemployed had fallen beneath a million. By 1937
unemployment had vanished...
One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
only work creates value and prosperity...
But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
German birth rate...
The National Socialist state gives major tax reductions to fathers for
each child. Families with three or more children receive payments of
10 and 20 marks monthly. By the end of 1937, 510,000 children were
receiving such support...
By the end of 1937, 252,000 mothers had received free vacations...
The Winterhilfswerk is the most beautiful expression of the new German
people's community. It is not the work of a small group of rich
people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the F�hrer's will:
No German may be hungry or cold!
One does not know whom to admire more: the cheerful willingness of
those who collect, or the rising amount of the gifts, to which even
the poorest contribute their share. The success of the
Winterhilfswerk, written permanently into the law of 1 December 1936,
demonstrates the efforts of the entire German nation. Gifts of money
alone totaled over 920 million marks during the four winters from
1933/34 to 1936/37. An additional 570 million marks of goods were
contributed. 50,000 freight cars alone would have been needed for the
potatoes contributed in the past years. The three million meters of
clothing given out by the WHW would stretch from Berlin to the Middle
East. The two million kilograms of coal would form a wall ten meters
high around all of Germany. These few examples, and more could be
given, prove the strength of the German people's will to be active
socialists..
Another sign of this socialism is the entirely different status of the
German worker in factories. The social honor of each working German is
guaranteed by law. The state's representatives ensure that exploiting
workers is impossible. The legal working conditions correspond to
National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and temporary workers.
There is nothing like this elsewhere in the world.
The dignity of labor is evidenced by improvements in the appearance of
the work place. Wherever one looks in Germany, ugly dark buildings are
vanishing. The "Beauty of Labor" movement in today's Germany is not
empty talk or an impossible demand, but living reality. Large sums
that formerly would have been wasted in strikes and lockouts have been
used since 1933 to improve work places. 23,000 places have been
transformed form soulless drudgery to pleasant places to work. 6,000
factory courtyards now offer space for real relaxation, which was not
true in the past. 17,000 canteens and lounges, 13,000 shower and
changing rooms have been transformed. The dirtier the work, the
cleaner the workers. More than 800 community buildings and 1200 sport
facilities , including over 200 swimming pools, have been established.
The crew quarters in over 3500 ships have also been improved.
The NS Society Kraft durch Freude brings cheer and pleasure to
workplaces through concerts and art exhibits. The art exhibits alone
introduced more than 2,5 million workers to the creations of true
German art. Just five years ago, it was obvious that the great works
of German culture belonged to a small group of the upper class.
Besides the factory concerns and art exhibitions, the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude uses theatrical performances, other concerts, singing and
musical groups to introduce the creations of German art to every
working German. 22 million citizens have attended theatrical
performances..
Of no less importance is the KdF's vacation program. Earlier, German
workers did not know what to do with their, at best, five days of
annual vacation. They could not visit the beauties of the German
landscape, much less travel abroad. The NS Society Kraft durch Freude
gave German workers the possibility of vacationing at the beach or in
the mountains, or to explore the homeland. Over 20 million have
participated in KdF trips since 1934. That is more than a quarter of
Germany's population. 19 million citizens participated in 60,000
vacation trips at home. Hand to hand, they would stretch from Berlin
to Tokyo. KdF trains have traveled 2,160,000 kilometers, or 54 times
around the world. The nine large KdF cruise ships have covered a
distance equal to twice the distance from the earth to the moon. They
have carried German workers to Madeira, Italy and Norway, broadening
their horizons and giving them unforgettable experiences. Three
additional ships will be added the KdF's own fleet of four. A KdF
resort is being built on the island of R�gen. It will not be the only
one. A series of other vacation and spa resorts will be built. They
will fulfill the F�hrer's wishes at the start of the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude: to lead a cheerful, creative and strong people to
success in the world.
The goal of bringing German culture to the entire German people,
regardless of their income, is especially clear with the German radio.
Thanks to the People's Radio Set, a solid, inexpensive and capable
receiver, the number of radio listeners has risen from around 4
million in 1932 to 9.1 million today. The un-German programming of the
System Era has been transformed by National Socialism. Now radio
acquaints the German people with the work of their great masters of
music and literature. Alongside these artistic programs, the
entertaining programming provides for the relaxation of hard-working
people.
Clear proof for the rising prosperity of the German people is provided
by the growing consumption of foodstuffs and luxury items of every
variety. During the prewar year 1913, only a little more than 2.9
million tons of meat were consumed. In 1937, that figure had risen to
3.7 million, up about 5% from 1932. Thanks to the elimination of
unemployment, bread consumption increased by about 10%, sugar by 15%.
Butter consumption rose from 420,000 to 519,000 tons. Milk production,
both for drinking and for making butter and cheese, rose from 23.5 to
25.4 billion liters from 1932 to 1937. Coffee consumption rose from
104,000 to 140,000 tons. Beer consumption has risen from 3.3 to 4.4
billion liters. That is an increase of about 3 billion glasses of
beer...
The growing prosperity and rising consumption of foodstuffs and luxury
items required hard work. A people can only consume what it produces.
In the face of this obvious truth, which however only became clear to
us after 1933, all the parliamentary resolutions, all the decisions of
international conferences and the demands of the international unions
become silly talk. The German people have proved that by our own work.
Germany has worked untiringly since 1933, producing itself the goods
it needs to improve its standard of living.
The rising production in all areas, which has never before been seen,
is the fruit of our work. The foundation of our life is agriculture,
whose task is to guarantee that the nation is fed. When the F�hrer
took power, agriculture was in a ruinous state. Officers of the court
were regular visitors at German farms. The animals and the harvest
were seized ruthlessly because taxes and interests had risen to
impossible levels that German soil could not meet. Forced auctions
drove tens of thousands of German farmers from their land. Desperation
prevailed in the villages. As a result of the desperate situation,
agriculture could not ensure the feeding of the German nation. The
ghost of hunger threatened.
Here too the F�hrer set to work immediately. Interest and taxes were
lowered, and the German soil was freed from usurious capital. Between
1927 and 1931, German agricultural debt rose by 2,9 billion marks.
From 1933 to 1936, it fell by 800 million marks. The interest burden,
which was over a billion marks in 1931/32, was reduced by National
Socialist actions to 630 million marks. The crowning achievement was
the creation of the Reich Inherited Farm Law, which guaranteed that
the German family farm will always remain the wellspring of the
nation...
Just as for farmers and agricultural workers, the urban population is
also being cared for. Although more than enough willing and able
workers were available in 1932, and although the housing need was
certainly great, the government put workers on the dole and built only
141,265 dwellings. This was an area in which the need for new jobs was
particularly clear. Even in 1933, the number of new dwellings rose to
178,000, with particular attention being given to small and mid-sized
units for those with limited incomes. This number grew year by year,
reaching 340,000 dwellings in 1937, double the number of 1932. In all,
National Socialist has built more than 1.4 million new, and above all
healthy and affordable, dwellings for the German people since 1933.
This is enough to house the entire population of Berlin...
Growing prosperity and production led to a growth in traffic. The
entirely neglected German highway system had to be repaired and
expanded. 40,000 kilometers of highway have been repaired since 1933.
That is enough to go all the way around the world! Then there are the
Reich Autobahns, the most splendid construction project in the world.
2,000 kilometers were open to traffic by the end of 1937. 1,000
kilometers more will be added yearly, until Germany has a highway
network unique in all the world.
Automobile production has reached a level that no one would have
thought possible a few years ago.
The number of motor vehicles in Germany has doubled, exceeding the 3
million mark in 1937. Thanks to the growing prosperity, broad circles
of our nation can now afford a car. 137,141 of the new vehicles in
1937, well over half, were purchased by workers and employees. 30,015
workers and employees were able to buy a car the previous year. Cars
are becoming both better and cheaper. The increase in cars will be
even more striking when the Volkswagen comes on the market. Enormous
factories ar even now being built. The best proof for the quality and
good pricing of German cars is the fact that automobile exports have
increased by a factor of eight since 1932!..
The great improvements in the German transportation system have
resulted in a growing stream of foreign visitors. The pulsing life in
Germany is drawing more and more visitors to the Third Reich. The
number of overnights by foreigners has risen from 2.7 million in 1932
is far above 7 million in 1937. These foreigners, who often come to
Germany with false ideas, see with their own eyes the work of the
F�hrer and the remarkable efforts of the German people. They return
home as the best witnesses of the greatness and strength of the German
Reich...
The F�hrer has repeatedly reminded the German people that strong
policies are the absolute prerequisite to our economic, social and
cultural health. Only intentional hostility and stupidity can still
deny that the F�hrer was right in every respect...

As example, your young lady, claiming to be a Nazi, says but without
"nationalism"? But Adolf Hitler, the very name of his party, which is in
English "The National Socialist German Workers Party." had very firm racial
beliefs, in addition to hatred of Jewry. Nazism, without "A Nation" is
simply socialism, hiding under yet another name. To be a real Nazi, you
simply must believe that
Germanic peoples are a race superior to all others.

The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20

I would argue that old Adolf did'nt really care if he won power on the left
or the right, only turned right after the Munich Putsch failed, but thats
another story.

One of the posters the National Socialists put on walls said that
"right" and "left" were outdated terms.

Now old Joe Stalin also (amonst many other people) murdered uncounted jews.

"Even cremated bodies leave about 9 pounds of remains.
With millions dead, thousands of tons of ashes should be out there.
What about detailed plans, drawings, and operating manuals for those
specially designed killing chambers? Surely they can be found in the
tons of documents recovered after the war. Studying the Holocaust
should be like tracking a herd of elephants through deep snow; just
look at all those deep tracks and ruts left by those gigantic animals.
But there is no such visible trail left by the gigantic Holocaust.
Professional trackers must be used, and they are needed to point out
the subtle signs of the trail. The most popular are photographs. But
as it turns out, there are no photographs standing alone that prove
anything. All the photographs must be analyzed, properly captioned,
and explained by experts. Hundreds of pictures of dreadful looking
dead bodies are always boldly displayed; but they are usually from
places that were not considered killing centers. Even the Holocaust
experts grudgingly admit people shown in the photographs were not
murdered, but instead died of starvation and disease.
But what of all the other trail evidence? We still need the
professional Holocaust trackers. No building plan was ever found with
any kind of killing device included. Experts must be employed to point
out the places in the plans where gas chambers were located. What
about those written orders and detailed reports about gassings? Not a
single one has been found. In the tons of official documents, in the
thousands of official reports, in the hundreds of personal diaries,
there is not a single mention of gas chambers. In fact, there is very
little outright talk of killing. Again the specially trained
Holocaust experts must be brought in to find "code words" in the
documents which mean kill. What's more, the remains of millions of
bodies of the victims seem to have completely disappeared. The experts
just ignore that.
The very idea that the enormous massacre called the Holocaust
could have happened without leaving mountains of clear and
indisputable evidence is absurd."
Morghus

I think Joe and Adolf would have been great friends,

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is
the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the
scene."
"We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie
and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our
aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to
arouse their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only
to break them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to
the people."
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from
five to eight hundred opponants against fifteen to sixteen National
Socialists; yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be
killed rather than capitulate. More than once a handful of party
colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of
Reds. Those fifteeen or twenty men would certainly have been
overwhelmed in the end had not the opponants known that three or four
times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. And
that was a risk they were not willing to run."
When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he
carried a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones
and things, but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick.
This was the signal to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And
soon there was not a Red left to be found.

had they been able to
work out who the big boss was!(:-) But Joe could have taught Adolf much in
the science of mass murder! Adolf spend a lot of effort. Joe? He just forgot
to send food, and let nature take it's course.

Now, it is very strange in our country today, that the leftists, who have
claimed to be the great protectors of all minorities for decades, now attack
a minority, the Jews!(:-)

Jews are the minority that rules the USA.
"Nearly all the world has access to less biased information than
residents of the
US.
In recent votes on sanctions of Israel in the General Assembly of the
UN, the
votes have ranged up to 153 to 2, the 2 being the US, and Israel."
RLA

It is strange, is'nt it, that suddenly, attacking Jews becomes "politically
correct"
and they all fall into the party line. I don't think I could live in such a
world.
I like to ***** too much!(:-) Not to mention thinking for myself!

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.

User: "neptune3"
Title: Re: Nazi Greens	26 Dec 2003 01:32:41 PM

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:34:14 GMT, "Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah"
<ahn-fyuh-wi-dizayah@thegreatslashtubitch.org> wrote:

discussions. Eventually, she admitted to me that she had become a Nazi (yes,
an actual Hitler-quoting Nazi).

Of course, I tried to dissuade her. I did my best to explain the failures of
socialism, and to defend the Jewish people.

Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fello -countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.

User: "scott.."
Title: Re: Nazi Greens	26 Dec 2003 09:22:31 AM

Stop posting moron. You dam Racist.
"Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah" <ahn-fyuh-wi-dizayah@thegreatslashtubitch.org> wrote
in message news:qgTGb.40$9W5.3@fe2.texas.rr.com...

Ahn Fyuh Wi Dizayah's Anti-Racism List presents:

THE NAZI GREEN PHENOMENON

User: "neptune3"
Title: Re: Re: Nazi Greens	26 Dec 2003 01:39:14 PM

by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "*****" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.

Page 1 of 1