| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2004 03:58:03 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped
____________________________________________________________________________________
The crowds around Adolf Hitler, and along his route, were carefully selected for the desired response.
You've all seen the old films of the Nuremburg Rallies, so you get the general idea.
If you were an Anti-Hitler German, you'll be lucky if you ever saw Adolf Hitler in the flesh.
Those who prided themselves on being true patriots, would give the Nazi salute.
You've all seen it in the old films, so there's no excuse for anyone not not knowing how it's done.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The audiences of Castro always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Kim always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Ghadaffi always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Saddam always cheered and clapped.
The audiences of Stalin always cheered and clapped.
What is your point?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is my point :
Only in a democracy does the nation's leader actually see the thousands of dissidents with their
written slogans of protest.
And only in a democracy does the nation's leader hear the words that the dissidents are shouting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
| User: "Patrick" |
|
| Title: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
07 Jan 2004 05:13:23 AM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:bvlnvvc2japrh6k1d9s3f762dk6mm0c1ua@4ax.com...
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The crowds around Adolf Hitler, and along his route, were carefully
selected for the desired response.
You've all seen the old films of the Nuremburg Rallies, so you get the
general idea.
If you were an Anti-Hitler German, you'll be lucky if you ever saw
Adolf Hitler in the flesh.
Those who prided themselves on being true patriots, would give the
Nazi salute.
You've all seen it in the old films, so there's no excuse for anyone
not not knowing how it's done.
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The audiences of Castro always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Kim always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Ghadaffi always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Saddam always cheered and clapped.
The audiences of Stalin always cheered and clapped.
What is your point?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is my point :
Only in a democracy does the nation's leader actually see the thousands of
dissidents with their
written slogans of protest.
And only in a democracy does the nation's leader hear the words that the
dissidents are shouting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder ... what about the freedom of speech?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
07 Jan 2004 07:40:14 AM |
|
|
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvlnvvc2japrh6k1d9s3f762dk6mm0c1ua@4ax.com...
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The crowds around Adolf Hitler, and along his route, were carefully
selected for the desired response.
You've all seen the old films of the Nuremburg Rallies, so you get the
general idea.
If you were an Anti-Hitler German, you'll be lucky if you ever saw
Adolf Hitler in the flesh.
Those who prided themselves on being true patriots, would give the
Nazi salute.
You've all seen it in the old films, so there's no excuse for anyone
not not knowing how it's done.
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The audiences of Castro always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Kim always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Ghadaffi always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Saddam always cheered and clapped.
The audiences of Stalin always cheered and clapped.
What is your point?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is my point :
Only in a democracy does the nation's leader actually see the thousands of
dissidents with their
written slogans of protest.
And only in a democracy does the nation's leader hear the words that the
dissidents are shouting.
But the dissidents cheer and clap their own leaders as well as applauding
their own audacity. just like the dissidents who supported Hitler.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
07 Jan 2004 11:28:46 AM |
|
|
Ike Milligan wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvlnvvc2japrh6k1d9s3f762dk6mm0c1ua@4ax.com...
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The crowds around Adolf Hitler, and along his route, were carefully
selected for the desired response.
You've all seen the old films of the Nuremburg Rallies, so you get the
general idea.
If you were an Anti-Hitler German, you'll be lucky if you ever saw
Adolf Hitler in the flesh.
Those who prided themselves on being true patriots, would give the
Nazi salute.
You've all seen it in the old films, so there's no excuse for anyone
not not knowing how it's done.
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The audiences of Castro always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Kim always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Ghadaffi always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Saddam always cheered and clapped.
The audiences of Stalin always cheered and clapped.
What is your point?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is my point :
Only in a democracy does the nation's leader actually see the thousands of
dissidents with their
written slogans of protest.
And only in a democracy does the nation's leader hear the words that the
dissidents are shouting.
But the dissidents cheer and clap their own leaders as well as applauding
their own audacity. just like the dissidents who supported Hitler.
When was the last time Bush spoke before an audience that wasn't handpicked?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
09 Jan 2004 07:49:21 PM |
|
|
"Server 13" <c-bee1@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:bthfrh$dss$5@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Ike Milligan wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvlnvvc2japrh6k1d9s3f762dk6mm0c1ua@4ax.com...
grub@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The crowds around Adolf Hitler, and along his route, were carefully
selected for the desired response.
You've all seen the old films of the Nuremburg Rallies, so you get
the
general idea.
If you were an Anti-Hitler German, you'll be lucky if you ever saw
Adolf Hitler in the flesh.
Those who prided themselves on being true patriots, would give the
Nazi salute.
You've all seen it in the old films, so there's no excuse for anyone
not not knowing how it's done.
____________________________________________________________________________
________
The audiences of Castro always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Kim always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Ghadaffi always cheer and clap.
The audiences of Saddam always cheered and clapped.
The audiences of Stalin always cheered and clapped.
What is your point?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is my point :
Only in a democracy does the nation's leader actually see the thousands
of
dissidents with their
written slogans of protest.
And only in a democracy does the nation's leader hear the words that the
dissidents are shouting.
But the dissidents cheer and clap their own leaders as well as
applauding
their own audacity. just like the dissidents who supported Hitler.
When was the last time Bush spoke before an audience that wasn't
handpicked?
My point is that politics is evil.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
10 Jan 2004 02:07:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:49:21 GMT, "Ike Milligan"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:
My point is that politics is evil.
Unless a group manages to come to power while being hated by the
media and the money bags.
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honour which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."
" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
16 Jan 2004 08:02:15 PM |
|
|
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fom000t5l1gngevtu8pli5fhjog8jgtqsj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:49:21 GMT, "Ike Milligan"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:
My point is that politics is evil.
Unless a group manages to come to power while being hated by the
media and the money bags.
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
By constantly quoting Mein Kampf you are trying my patience. I am not the
media nor money-bags, but this ancient Nazi crap is getting on my nerves. If
you weren't a brain-washed creep you would have something original to say
that we could all learn from. Instead you are with this junk that even a lot
of Nazis thought was ridiculous at the time.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
16 Jan 2004 08:15:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:02:15 GMT, "Ike Milligan"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:
By constantly quoting Mein Kampf you are trying my patience. I am not the
media nor money-bags, but this ancient Nazi crap is getting on my nerves. If
you weren't a brain-washed creep you would have something original to say
that we could all learn from. Instead you are with this junk that even a lot
of Nazis thought was ridiculous at the time.
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.
To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.
They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.
The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.
I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.
To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.
The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.
Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.
Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.
We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...
One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.
It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.
They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'
They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.
To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.
For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.
As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....
Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.
On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.
If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.
I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.
The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
18 Jan 2004 09:34:45 PM |
|
|
"neptune3" <nptn3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk6h00l3vret8cnn3d2rirt4vrt8hcblnj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:02:15 GMT, "Ike Milligan"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:
By constantly quoting Mein Kampf you are trying my patience. I am not the
media nor money-bags, but this ancient Nazi crap is getting on my nerves.
If
you weren't a brain-washed creep you would have something original to say
that we could all learn from. Instead you are with this junk that even a
lot
of Nazis thought was ridiculous at the time.
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:
The Windbags of War.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "neptune3" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Re: The audiences of Adolf Hitler always cheered and clapped... |
19 Jan 2004 01:59:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:34:45 GMT, "Ike Milligan"
<accordiondocxyzxyzxyz@mindspring.com> wrote:
The Windbags of War.
England's Guilt
by Joseph Goebbels
It is a major error to assume that England's plutocrats slipped into
the war against their will or even against their intentions. The
opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all
the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They
surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal
other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and
this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.
Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the
Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not
support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian
reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help
of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any
measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring
clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of
aggression against Germany.
The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was
traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always
directed its main military might against Germany. It never could
tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by
claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.
Today there is still another reason. The English warmongers conceal
it. It is crassly egotistic. The English prime minister announced the
day the war began that England's goal was to destroy Hitlerism.
However, he defined Hitlerism in a way other than how the English
plutocracy actually sees it. The English warmongers claim that
National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure
against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger
for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality,
however, there is another reason for England's war with Germany. The
English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to
conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England
controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has
never threatened English interests.
So when Chamberlain says that England wants to destroy Hitlerism in
this war, he is in one sense incorrect. But in another sense, he is
speaking the truth. England does want to destroy Hitlerism. It sees
Hitlerism as the present internal state of the Reich, which is a thorn
in the eye of English plutocracy.
England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's
state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest
land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact
the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of
this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished,
socially enslaved and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter
of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs.
Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is
there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums.
Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of
it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly
brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate from making
major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve
capitalist democracy.
Capitalism democracy suffers from every possible modern social
ailment. The Lords and City people can remain the richest people one
earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting
their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own
country.
Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and
modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English
plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy
Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that
have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly
fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English
capitalism.
That is why England declared war on Germany. Since it was accustomed
to letting others fight its wars, it looked to the European continent
to find those ready to fight for England's interests. France was ready
to take on this degrading duty, since the same kind of people ruled
France. They too were ready for war out of egotistic reasons. Western
European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that
rules the world. It declared war on German socialism because it
endangered their capitalist interests.
A similar drama began in 1914. England had more luck during those four
and a half years than it is having today. Europe's nations had no
chance to see what was happening. The nations of Europe today have no
desire to play the same role they played during the World War. England
and France stand alone. Still, England is trying once again to wage
war without making any personal sacrifice. The goal is to blockade
Germany, to gradually bring it to submit by starvation. That is
longstanding English policy. They used it successfully in the
Napoleonic wars, and also during the World War. It would work now as
well, if the German people had not been educated by National
Socialism. National Socialism is immune to English temptations.
English propaganda lies no longer work in Germany. They have gradually
lost their effectiveness in the rest of the world as well, since
German propaganda today reaches far beyond its borders. This time,
English plutocracy will not succeed in driving a wedge between the
German people and their leadership, though that is their goal.
The German nation today is defending not only its honor and
independence, but also the great social accomplishments it has made
through hard and untiring work since 1933. It is a people's state
built on the foundation of justice and economic good sense. In the
past, England always had the advantage of facing a fragmented Germany.
It is only natural that English plutocracy today seeks to split the
German people and make it ripe for new collapse.
English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper
names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people,
only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England
was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England
wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people. But that did not
stop English plutocracy from brutally and relentlessly suppressing the
Boers after that war or the Germans after our defeat.
A child once burned is twice shy. The German people were once victims
of lying English war propaganda. Now it understands the situation. It
has long understood the background of this war. It knows that behind
all English plutocratic capitalism's fine words, its aim is to destroy
Germany's social achievements. We are defending the socialism we have
build in Germany since 1933 with every military, economic and
spiritual means at our disposal. The bald English lies have no impact
on the German people.
English plutocracy is finally being forced to defend itself. In the
past, it always found other nations to fight for it. This time, the
English people must themselves risk their necks for the lords and City
men. They will meet a unified German people of workers, farmers and
soldiers who are prepared to defend their nation with every means at
their disposal.
We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy
forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have
to pay for it.
The whole world is waking up today. It can no longer be ruled by the
capitalist methods of the 19th Century. The peoples have matured. They
will one day deal a terrible blow to the capitalist plutocrats who are
the cause of their misery.
It is no accident that National Socialism has the historical task of
carrying out this reckoning. Plutocracy is collapsing intellectually,
spiritually, and in the not too distant future, militarily. We are
acting consistently with Nietzsche's words: "Give a shove to what is
falling."
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
