| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Moon Goddess" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2007 06:11:02 PM |
| Object: |
Why the gun is civilization |
Why the gun is civilization.
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.htm
l
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing
me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon
that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a
75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and
a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with
baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength,
size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm
makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by
choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a
mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for
the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong,
and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A
mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are
won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on
the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings
and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun
makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,
not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply
wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal
and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight,
but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm
afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the
actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
--
Libertarianism: The "insane" ( according to the majority of people )
philosophy that it's wrong to initiate force against others, and that
slavery and involuntary servitude are wrong as part of that.
Amendment XIII.
1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
16 Aug 2007 07:11:43 PM |
|
|
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACOG" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
17 Aug 2007 04:39:25 PM |
|
|
On 2007-08-17, Topaz postulated:
[...]
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Hang on a minute! Thats Commie stuff!
My god! It was the same psychopaths working both sides all along!
:\
--
ACOG_in_the_machine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Moon Goddess" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
17 Aug 2007 05:11:11 PM |
|
|
ACOG <A.Cantankerous@Old.Git> wrote :
On 2007-08-17, Topaz postulated:
[...]
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Hang on a minute! Thats Commie stuff!
My god! It was the same psychopaths working both sides all along!
You doubted it?
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the
liberalistic concept of the individual" -- Adolph Hitler
"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between
the State and the Individual." -- Benito Mussolini
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the
elevation of the single person." -- Vladimir Lenin
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once
and for all." -- Nikita Khrushchev
"A little freedom is a good thing but too much freedom is not a good
thing." -- Communist China Chairman Deng Chao Ping, after the Tiannanmen
Square massacre.
"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When
personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." - Bill
Clinton ( instead of stopping the abusers )
If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those
guarantees." -- Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans ..." - Bill Clinton
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
good." - Hillary Clinton
"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what
is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice
for the greater good." -- Ted Kennedy
--
Libertarianism: The "insane" ( according to the majority of people )
philosophy that it's wrong to initiate force against others, and that
slavery and involuntary servitude are wrong as part of that.
Amendment XIII.
1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACOG" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
18 Aug 2007 03:14:55 PM |
|
|
On 2007-08-17, Moon Goddess postulated:
ACOG <A.Cantankerous@Old.Git> wrote :
On 2007-08-17, Topaz postulated:
[...]
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Hang on a minute! Thats Commie stuff!
My god! It was the same psychopaths working both sides all along!
You doubted it?
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the
liberalistic concept of the individual" -- Adolph Hitler
"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between
the State and the Individual." -- Benito Mussolini
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the
elevation of the single person." -- Vladimir Lenin
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once
and for all." -- Nikita Khrushchev
"A little freedom is a good thing but too much freedom is not a good
thing." -- Communist China Chairman Deng Chao Ping, after the Tiannanmen
Square massacre.
"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When
personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." - Bill
Clinton ( instead of stopping the abusers )
If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those
guarantees." -- Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans ..." - Bill Clinton
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
good." - Hillary Clinton
"At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down
individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what
is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice
for the greater good." -- Ted Kennedy
--
ACOG_in_the_machin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
19 Aug 2007 10:53:30 AM |
|
|
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Columbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personnel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg are Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidelines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionaire Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of children's
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACOG" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
19 Aug 2007 05:01:47 PM |
|
|
On 2007-08-19, Topaz postulated:
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
BS
Wow! It works! Neat trick!
--
ACOG_in_the_machine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
20 Aug 2007 06:50:35 PM |
|
|
The Jews Are Our Misfortune
By Dr. William Pierce
If you've been listening to many of my broadcasts you will know that
the issue I talk about most often is that of media control. In nearly
every broadcast I have pointed out that the people who control the
mass media of news and entertainment are able to manipulate the
opinions and attitudes of about 95 per cent of the population. I have
pointed out
that the media bosses do this manipulation deliberately and in
collusion with one another, taking advantage of the compelling need
most people have to conform their ideas and their behavior to a
perceived norm.
The media bosses use their control over the mass media of
entertainment -- and to a lesser extent over the news media -- to
create an artificial norm that is presented to the public through
television, motion pictures, advertising, and other media, and this
artificial norm is the one perceived as real by most of the public.
Through their control of public opinion the media bosses also control
the democratic political process and governmental policy in a way that
is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to the White public. And
these media bosses are overwhelmingly Jews.
That has been the message I have presented over and over again in many
of these broadcasts. I have talked about different facets of Jewish
media control and have presented different specifics, different
details, in various broadcasts. I've discussed a number of different
Hollywood films or television shows as specific examples of the way in
which the Jews use their media control to brainwash the public, to
promote
fashions and styles and behavior that are harmful to our people but
that advance the long-term schemes of the Jews to further dominate and
exploit our society.
(Some of this may be outdated today, but it still explains why things
are the way they are)
I've talked about specific Jews who control various segments of the
mass media, and I've pointed out specific instances of the destructive
way in which they use their control. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Sumner Redstone and his control of MTV and CBS and the
Hollywood film studio Paramount Pictures. I've talked about the Jewish
media boss Michael Eisner and his control of the Disney Company and
ABC. I've talked about the Jewish media boss Gerald Levin and his
control of Time Warner and CNN. I've talked about the Jewish media
boss Edgar Bronfman and his control of the largest segment of the
popular music industry and Universal Studios in Hollywood. And I've
talked about dozens of other Jewish media bosses and the media they
control and the specific ways in
which they use those media. In particular, during the past few months
I've talked about several recent Hollywood films which deliberately
target teenaged White girls and brainwash them with the notion that it
is fashionable for them to have sex with Black males.
And of course, I've talked about the Jewish control of the news media
as well as the entertainment media. In a way similar to their use of
the entertainment media to set popular fashions, the Jewish media
bosses distort and censor the news in order to give the public a
distorted picture of what is happening in the world. I've given
several very
specific examples of this Jewish management of the news in recent
months.
I've talked about the total blackout at the national level of the news
of the atrocious rape and massacre of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by
Blacks last December, and I've talked about the almost total
suppression of the news of the Black racial attacks on Whites in
Seattle in the Mardi Gras riot at the end of February this year. I
also talked about
the downplaying of the racial aspects of the Black rioting in
Cincinnati in April of this year, about the failure of the news media
outside the immediate Cincinnati area to mention the deliberate
targeting of Whites, especially White women, by the Black rioters. And
I described the gross distortions in the news coverage of the racial
politics in York,
Pennsylvania, that led to the current White mayor of York being
charged in May with the killing of a Black during a Black race riot in
York 32 years ago.
I have pointed out repeatedly how all of this suppression of the news
and distortion of the news is aimed at creating and maintaining a
false picture in the public mind of racial conflict in the United
States. In this false picture Whites always are the aggressors, Blacks
or other non-Whites are the innocent victims, and the root of all
racial conflict
is White racism.
In a number of my broadcasts I've discussed at length why the Jews do
what they do: why they use their media control in such a deceptive and
destructive way, what their motives are. I've also talked about how
they collaborate. I've pointed out that their propaganda policies are
not formulated independently, but that they have a coherent party line
that
they all follow. I've given a number of specific examples of this.
Well, all of these things that I've talked about have not gone
unnoticed by the Jewish media bosses themselves. When people expose
their activities or their scheming they pay attention. In particular,
they have been paying attention to these American Dissident Voices
broadcasts and to the work of my organization, the National Alliance.
They read what's on our Web sites at natvan.com and natall.com and
resistance.com, and they talk about it among themselves. This shows up
pretty clearly in the uniform way in which their media respond to us.
Whether it's the Associated Press or Time magazine or the Washington
Post or a television news commentator anywhere in the United States,
they always use the same
phrasing in talking about us. They always use the word "hate" in
referring to us. They always say that the National Alliance is the
"most dangerous organized hate group" in America, despite the fact
that all we do is disseminate to the public the truth about what
they're doing. That's what they regard as "dangerous" and as "hate."
If you want to see a current indicator of the fact that they do think
about us, go to the Web site promoting Steven Spielberg's new
movie,A.I. There you'll see a parody of a part of the National
Alliance's Web site in the form of a page headed "Who Is the
Anti-Robot Militia?" It's obviously copied, almost word for word, from
the page "Who Is the National Alliance?" on our Web site. It's
difficult for me to understand what they hoped to accomplish with this
parody. Perhaps they believe that it will make people take us less
seriously.
Somewhat less quirky but much more directly deceptive are their
standard smokescreen responses. It used to be that whenever I would
raise the issue of Jewish monopoly control of the mass media of news
and entertainment during an interview or on a call-in program, I would
hear the response from a Jew or an apologist for the Jews: "What about
Ted
Turner? He's not a Jew," as if that negated everything I had said. Of
course, that response was used before Ted Turner's CNN was taken over
by the very Jewish Time Warner. And now that Ted Turner has been eased
out of all decision-making positions in the cable news network he
built and has been replaced by Jews, one doesn't hear the Ted Turner
response any longer.
The standard responses today, the ones I hear as often as I used to
hear the Ted Turner response, are the "it's the shareholders" and the
"it's the big bankers." Whenever I start naming names -- whenever I
begin talking about the control over the media wielded by Michael
Eisner or Sumner Redstone, for example, a Jew will pop up with the
response:
"Those guys don't control the media. It's the shareholders who control
the media. Eisner and Redstone are just employees. The shareholders
tell them what to do." A variation on this theme is, "Eisner and
Redstone don't own the media. It's the big banks that own all of the
media, and most of the big bankers are Gentiles."
Well, of course, that's not really true, and they know it's not true.
The big Jewish media bosses are mostly quite autonomous. Sumner
Redstone, for example, owns outright two-thirds of the shares in his
media empire. His personal fortune is more than 12 billion dollars,
according to Forbes magazine this month. I'm quite sure he doesn't
check
with any shareholders before he dreams up some new piece of
race-mixing filth for MTV.
As for Gentile bankers telling the Jewish media bosses what kind of
propaganda they must produce for the public, that's total nonsense. I
haven't yet done a study of the investment banking industry to
determine what percentage of Jews and what percentage of Gentiles are
involved in it, but one thing that's certain is that the Gentile
bankers would faint dead away at the thought of telling Jewish media
bosses such as Michael Eisner or the Sulzberger family or the
Newhouses or Sumner Redstone to cut back on the race-mixing
propaganda. Gentile bankers as a class are rich, deracinated capons,
whose only interest is money.
Every Jewish propaganda medium -- CBS or MTV or Time magazine or the
New York Times -- is staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and they
all know what they're doing. They work as a tribe, as a swarm of
termites gnawing at the foundations of our existence. There is total
agreement among the media Jews as to the general thrust of their
propaganda. They may disagree on many of the details -- they may even
compete against each other for a bigger slice of the media pie -- but
all agree on the general goals of degrading and subverting Gentile
civilization, of corrupting Gentile institutions, of mongrelizing our
race. Again, the Jews work as a tribe, and that is the source of their
strength and their success.
Gentile bankers, on the other hand, work only for themselves. They
would not dream of combining and using their financial strength to
protect our people from the Jews. They are terrified of the Jews, of
the media. The more money they have, the more selfish and the more
cowardly they are. The huge difference, the decisive difference,
between the Jews and our people is that they work as a tribe, and we
work as individuals. They
work together, rich Jews and poor Jews, for their common tribal
interests, against us, and until now we have failed to organize
effectively to defend ourselves against them.
Anyway, my point is that their defense against my exposure of their
activities and their power over our government is orchestrated - that
is, they've all gotten together and decided what their defense will be
-- and it's a deliberate lie. As I continue to expose the destructive
activities of the Jewish media bosses, you will continue to hear them
and their apologists respond that they really don't have any power,
that it's the Gentile shareholders and the Gentile bankers who control
the media. A lot of dimwits will believe that lie. A lot of couch
potatoes, a lot of soccer moms, a lot of baseball fans, a lot of
lemmings, will
believe that it's not the Jew Sumner Redstone who deliberately uses
MTV to corrupt White teenagers; instead it's some cabal of Gentile
shareholders and Gentile bankers who tell him what to do, and Redstone
is only an employee who follows their orders.
I think it's time for us to orchestrate our exposure of the Jewish
media. I think it's about time for the public, lemmings and all, to
begin hearing a uniform charge against them, a uniform statement of
our opposition to them. How about this: The Jews are our misfortune.
That's simple, and it's true, and it's easy to remember. Repeat after
me: The
Jews are our misfortune. Let's use that statement. Let's let everyone
hear it. Let's impress it on everyone's consciousness: The Jews are
our misfortune.
Of course, when I say the Jews are our misfortune, I'm not talking
only about the Jewish media bosses. I'm not talking only about the
Jews at the top, such as Sumner Redstone and the Sulzbergers and
Michael Eisner and the others who formulate and direct the propaganda
line against Gentile society; I'm talking about the whole tribe, and I
believe that message comes across in the statement, the Jews are our
misfortune. Let me tell you what the standard lemming response will be
to that statement, the response that they have been taught and will
parrot back.
First, from the religious lemmings it will be something like this:
"Oh, no, the Jews aren't our misfortune, we owe everything to the
Jews. Don't you know that Jesus was a Jew and God was his father? That
makes God a Jew. We must do what the Jews tell us. They are God's
people." I'm sure that argument is embarrassing to some of the more
sophisticated
apologists for the Jews, but many Christian Fundamentalists use it,
and I've heard it often.
From the secular lemmings it will be more like: "Don't you know that
Freud and Einstein and Salk were Jews? We wouldn't have a space
program if it weren't for Einstein. We wouldn't have a cure for polio
if it weren't for Salk. The Jews are our fortune, not our misfortune."
Well, of course, our space program has practically nothing to do with
Einstein or his Jewishness. Gentile thinkers envisioned it and
pioneered both its theoretical basis and its practical development.
The German theoretician, Hermann Oberth, and the Russian, Konstantin
Tsiolkovsky, were two of the Gentiles who independently demonstrated
mathematically the feasibility of space travel in the early years of
the last century. The American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard and the
German Wernher von Braun designed actual rockets and built the
vehicles which were the precursors of today's space ships. Jews didn't
become involved until it became glamorous and profitable. And the
development of a polio vaccine hardly would have missed a beat if
Jonas Salk had gone into the garment business instead of medicine. He
was one of a team, and he got the credit for the work of others as
well as for his own work.
The reasons we hear these silly and groundless claims in the first
place about how much we owe the Jews -- the reasons are Jewish media
control and Jewish tribalism, Jewish support for their own. Freud was
given the enormous buildup he received for his theorizing about anal
personalities and penis envy and the like because he was a Jew, not
because of any genuine merit in his theorizing. Other Jewish writers
recognized him as one of their own and propelled him to a position of
undeserved authority, and his theories ultimately did an enormous
amount of damage to the development of our understanding of psychology
and mental disease. Einstein was a competent mathematical physicist,
but a great deal of the publicity he received was based on the fact
that he was a Jew rather than on the merits of his work. As in the
case of Salk, Jewish publicists gave Einstein credit for the work of
others as well as for his own work.
What we must do is look at the balance sheet. Is the damage done to
our race by Karl Marx and all of his Jewish followers in the communist
movement -- the selective murder of more than 30 million of the best
of our people in Europe during the past century -- offset by whatever
contributions Einstein and Salk and other Jews have made -- even if
they did everything their Jewish boosters claim for them? Certainly,
there have been many other Jews who were competent and creative
engineers and scientists besides Einstein and Salk. Not every clever
Jew became a lawyer or a scriptwriter or a pawn shop owner or a
middleman. Some became chemists or mathematicians or physicists. But
can all of them together make up for the mass murders Lazar Kaganovich
perpetrated
aginst the Ukrainians, for the rapes and murders of German civilians
instigated by Ilya Ehrenburg, for the Eastern European girls still
being forced into sexual slavery on a huge scale today by Israeli
slave dealers?
I think not. And I have not yet put on the balance sheet what the
Jewish masters of America's mass media have done and are doing to us.
What can possibly compensate White Americans for the deliberate,
malevolent corruption of our young people by just one Jewish gangster
like Sumner Redstone and his MTV? The race-mixing, culture-destroying,
hip-hop filth churned out by Sumner Redstone's MTV seven days a week
is the single most destructive influence in American life today. And
of course, Redstone doesn't produce this filth all by himself. He has
thousands of Jews working for him at every level, not only in MTV but
also in CBS and in Paramount Pictures and in all of his other media
properties.
And although MTV, targeting White teenagers as it does, may seem the
most blatantly and maliciously destructive of the Jewish media, it is
hardly much worse than some of the filth being poured into the minds
of the American public by Michael Eisner's Disney empire: especially
by its Miramax films division under the Weinstein brothers. The fact
that much of the entertainment produced by Eisner's Disney Company is
relatively nnocuous does not compensate for the fact that some of it
is pure poison. The poison is being introduced gradually, more and
more each year, and it is having its effect. When the Disney Company
was entirely a Gentile company a few years ago, its output of
ntertainment may sometimes have been excessively bland, but none of it
was poison designed to corrupt White Americans.
And what can possibly compensate on our balance sheet for what the
Jewish news media are doing in their deliberate, calculated distortion
of the picture of the world seen by the American public. It is a
picture which has been designed to confuse White Americans, to
undermine their self-confidence, to induce feelings of racial guilt in
them. Just one example: the systematic suppression of the news of
Black crimes against White people and the exaggeration of the news of
every White crime against non-Whites is not a fluke. It is done
routinely by all of the Jewish news media: by the New York Times, by
the Washington Post, by Time magazine and Newsweek magazine, by CNN
and ABC News and CBS News and NBC News and all the rest. And
interracial crime is just one issue. The relations between the sexes;
immigration; the foreign relations of the United States with the rest
of the world, especially in the Middle East; and a hundred other
important issues are similarly distorted in their portrayal by the
media. This deliberate distortion of the public's view of the world
has done irreparable damage to the American system of government and
to American society. And again: the distortion has been deliberate,
planned, systematic, and intended to do harm to us. No number of funny
Jewish comedians, or successful Jewish entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley
or on Wall Street, or clever Jewish medical researchers can compensate
for this harm.
When we look at the balance sheet the conclusion is clear beyond any
doubt: the Jews are our misfortune. It's way past time for us to
accept this conclusion, to overcome our fears of being labeled
"anti-Semitic" for accepting this conclusion, to brush aside these
fears which have been instilled in us by the propaganda of the mass
media, and then to begin working to improve our fortunes.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
17 Aug 2007 08:45:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:11:11 -0500, Moon Goddess <MG@no-spam.www>
wrote:
You doubted it?
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the
liberalistic concept of the individual" -- Adolph Hitler
The liberal concept. He was very much for the individual. Here are
some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of
the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it
or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through
their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been
provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for
existance.
"Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes
to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another
and one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true
in regard to the practical application of those inventions and
discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their
turn inventions also and consequently dependant on the creative
faculty of the individual. Even in purely theoretical work, which can
not be measured by a definate rule and is preliminary to all
subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the
individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the
majority organize or think; but always and in every case the
individual man, the person."
"Therfore not only does the organization possess no right to
prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the
contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that
ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the
principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of
creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This
common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to
rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and
in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should
rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of leadership."
"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
appearance only in the administration of the national community
especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
veritable decomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in
different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to
the persistant Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of
personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of
personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The
constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the
destructive principle of the Jews. They become the 'ferment of
decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sence, the
wreckers of human civilization.
"Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish
endeaver to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in
every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of
the masses. In politics the parlimentary form of government is the
expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it
everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest
governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the
trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the
employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry."
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand
the fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should
merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt
the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete
with Marxism on its own ground."
"The best constitution and the best form of government is that
which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position
of dominant importance and influence in the community."
"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between
the State and the Individual." -- Benito Mussolini
His State was for individual people. But he was against the liberal
idea such as libertarianism.
Here are parts of a post about Mussolini written by a very
anti-Mussolini person. He has done his homework though and cites many
books which are also anti-Mussolini and anti-Fascist. These are some
things they admit:
"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he
comforted himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister
- when he refused to take his official salary.
"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci did not aim at the defence of the ruling class or the existing
State but wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist
camp so as to prevent a victory of Bolshevism.
even after coming to power, to take drives in the country with his
wife and stop at various
farmhouses on the way for a chat with the family there. He would enjoy
discussing the crops, the weather and all the usual rural topics and
obviously just liked the feeling of being one of the people. His claim
to represent the people was not just theory but heartfelt. And he
never gave up his "anti-bourgeois" rhetoric.
His policies were basically protectionist. He controlled the
exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that old favourite
of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he tried to
get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
products.
By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain production from its traditional
level, enabling Italy to cut wheat imports by 75% (Smith, 1967, p.
92).
He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and in 1926 he
issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save wood pulp.
And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e. mixing
industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for cars
(Smith, 1967, p. 87). Mussolini also disliked the population drift
from rural areas
into the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it
unless official permission was granted
he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls
designed, among other things, to prevent abuse of monopoly power
(Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).
....a big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social
insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work)
organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf.
the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures
(such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge
maternal and child welfare organization) were particularly notable for
their rationality and fficiency and, as such, were rewarded with great
success. For instance, the incidence of uberculosis
dropped dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20%
(Gregor, p. 259).
"instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land
reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed."
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius 12th signed the Lateran treaty -
which is still the legal basis for the existence of the Vatican State
to this day - and Pius in fact at one stage
called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty recognized
Roman Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as recognizing
the Vatican as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in exchange was
acceptance by the church - something that was enormously important in
the Italy of that time.
the great hatred that existed in prewar Germany between the Nazis and
the "Reds". And the early Fascists battled the "Reds" too, of course.
The 1919 election manifesto, for instance, contained policies of
worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of
the Stock exchange, land for the
peasants and abolition of the Monarchy and nobility. Further,
Mussolini never ceased to inveigh against "plutocrats".
He wanted a harmonious and united Italy for all Italians of all
classes and was sure that achieving just treatment for the workers
needed neither revolution nor any kind of
artificially enforced equality.
This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive
"voting with your feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent
Italians from emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net
emigration actually FELL under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and
the Berlin wall.
Mussolini gained power through political rather than revolutionary
means. His famous march on Rome was only superficially revolutionary.
The King of Italy and the army
approved of him because of his pragmatic policies so did not oppose
the march. So this collusion ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was
essentially bloodless.
His considerable popularity for many years among a wide range of
Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that was.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create ...a
system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate
state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights
with management.
REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen.
Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's
Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.
Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship
Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
(1989)
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
See:
http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm
Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
lecture,
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
San
Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
London:
Routledge.
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the
elevation of the single person." -- Vladimir Lenin
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.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACOG" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
18 Aug 2007 03:50:20 PM |
|
|
On 2007-08-18, Topaz postulated:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:11:11 -0500, Moon Goddess <MG@no-spam.www>
wrote:
You doubted it?
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the
liberalistic concept of the individual" -- Adolph Hitler
The liberal concept. He was very much for the individual. Here are
some quotes from Mein Kampf:
Which you just so happened to have handy, huh?
Here's one from Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler"
Hitler himself, his past, his character and his
speeches were still rather a handicap for the
movement that gathered around him. In 1930, he was
still widely regarded as a somewhat embarrassing
figure with a dismal past: the Munich saviour of
1923, the man of the grotesque beer-cellar putch.
Besides, for ordinary (and not only 'clever')
Germans, his personal appearance was throroughly
repellant- the pimp's forlock, the hoodlum's
elegance, the Viennese surburban accent, the
interminable speechifying, the epileptic behaviour
with it's wild gesticulations, foam at the mouth,
and the ultimate shifty and staring eyes. And then
there were the contents of those speeches: the
delight in threats and in cruelty, the bloodthirsty
execution fantasies. Most of those who began to
acclaim Hitler at the Sportplast in 1930 would
probably have avoided asking him for a light if they
had met him in the street. That was the strange
thing: their facination with the boggy, dripping
cesspool he represented, repulsiveness taken to
extremes. No one would have been surprised if a
policeman had taken him by the scruff of the neck in
the middle of his first speech and removed him to
some place from which he would never have emerged
again and where doubtless he belonged.
Note:
Interesting how the word "speechifying" got in there, seeing
as this was written in 1939, and only translated (as
directly as practical) by his surviving son in 2002.
--
ACOG_in_the_machine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
19 Aug 2007 10:52:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:50:20 GMT, ACOG <A.Cantankerous@Old.Git> wrote:
Which you just so happened to have handy, huh?
Here's one from Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler"
Hitler himself, his past, his character and his
speeches were still rather a handicap for the
movement that gathered around him.
BS
Rudolf Hess :
"National Socialists! Fellow German citizens!
I have rarely given a speech as difficult as this one. It is a
challenge to attempt to prove the good of something as obvious as
Hitler's assumption of Hindenburg's position. For fourteen years I
have been convinced that he is the only man able to master Germany's
fate. This conviction has grown over the years, as the original
emotional feeling found new support in endless ways that have
demonstrated Adolf Hitler's remarkable leadership abilities. It is
hard for me, now that I see the realization of fourteen years of
hopes, to gather the various reasons that explain how Adolf Hitler has
become the highest and only Fuehrer of the German people.
Whether through good luck or providence, I found in the summer of 1920
a small room in the Sterneckerbräu in which one Adolf Hitler, whom I
had never heard of, gave a speech to a few dozen people. His clear,
logical and persuasive speech laid out a new political program. This
man expressed my own vague feelings as a veteran of the war, making
clear what was necessary for the nation's salvation. He outlined a new
Germany from the heart of a front soldier, a Germany that I suddenly
realized was the one that had to become reality!
This man had driving passion, persuasive logic, and astonishing
knowledge. A powerful faith streamed from him - I had never
experienced its like. What was most remarkable was that I and the
other entirely rational members of the audience did not laugh as he in
all seriousness explained that the flag of the new movement for which
he and his movement fought would one day fly over the Reichstag, over
the Palace of Berlin, indeed over every German building. It would be
the victorious symbol of a new, honorable, nationalist and socialist
Germany.
At that moment in the Sterneckbräu there were really only two
possibilities. Either I would leave this fool immediately, or - as I
did - accept the conviction: This man will save Germany, if anyone
can!
I pledged my conviction to a friend, and on that very evening become
the most passionate admirer and loyal follower of this Fuehrer.
In the long years that followed, the rest of the world laughed and
mocked us, and the newspapers spread their poison and scorn about this
"madman," but nothing could shake my faith and readiness to give my
all for this man, so long as he did not lose faith in himself or his
mission.
I remember well even today a visit I made to Hitler in the small room
he sublet in Munich. He raged against a Munich newspaper that mocked
him and his idea. "I will show them whether I am to be taken seriously
or not," he exclaimed.
Still, his opponents did not take him seriously then, or for many
years after. Luckily so! For the most serious error his enemies made
was that they did not recognize early enough what a danger he was to
them. They missed the opportunity to destroy him and his small
following when it was still possible. The mighty tree of today, able
to withstand any storm, was then only a tender plant.
But like so many other things in the Führer's life, fate probably
determined that those around him were blind enough to lose valuable
time by fighting him only with ridicule. Providence, of which the
Fuehrer often speaks with such faith, preserved him and his movement
from destruction, preserving both for its purposes.
I knew Adolf Hitler as he walked through the streets of Munich in a
shabby gray coat, often hungry, accompanied only by a few friends,
posting flyers. He was armed only with a thick oak walking stick,
which he only too often had to use when his opponents from the then
USPD, or the Spartakus Bund, or some middle class party found the
primitive truths on these flyers unpleasant.
I can still remember how he, at the head of his "whole party" broke up
a meeting of Bavarian separatists, always putting himself in the way
of the greatest danger. Astonishingly, amidst all the daily tasks and
annoyances, he never lost sight of the larger goal. He always
presented his vision vividly to his followers.
In later years I saw this man during the triumphs and defeats of his
movement. At the moments of the worst defeats when his followers often
were near desperation, it was always he who restored the faith of the
doubters, gave them new enthusiasm, new faith. I was with him in the
Landsberg prison, when all seemed lost and his movement disintegrated
as his subordinates fought. I remember when there was the danger that
his parole would be canceled and he would have to stay behind bars for
another four or five years! The chances of realizing his ideas seemed
absolutely nonexistent then, but at that very moment he laid out the
methods he would use to rebuild the movement under the new
circumstances and by rejecting illegal methods. Then as always he
proved himself a master at adapting to new situations, in breaking
radically with methods he saw as outdated or ineffective.
With the certainty of a great leader, in the middle of what seemed to
be the total collapse of all his efforts, he explained to me that he
would need several years to rebuild the movement, and that it would be
seven years before he had the power to force his enemies to bend to
his will. That was in the winter of 1924/25. Seven years later it was
1932!
That was the year in which the forces of the past attempted in vain to
stop the final victory of National Socialism, the year in which every
attempt to stop Adolf Hitler and his movement failed, in which in fact
every shameless lying attack worked in the end to his advantage.
The Fuehrer said more often than in the past: "The others can do what
they want. When an idea is right, when it is fought for consistently,
when the movement that fights for it is well organized, and when the
leadership is determined to go its way regardless of the difficulties,
one day with mathematical certainty it will be victorious! The longer
they succeed in holding back our victory, the more powerful it will
be! It will fall into our laps like overripe fruit!"
These words from the decisive year 1932 explain the sudden and total
National Socialist seizure of power in 1933, which so surprised the
rest of the world.
Looking back I am convinced that our delayed victory, the fourteen
years that sometimes seemed to us as if they would never end, was
fate's way of preparing our people for the seizure of power. It was a
necessity of fate, just as the early death of the Fuehrer's parents
acquainted him with bitter poverty. That poverty forced him to become
a construction worker. He came to understand the poverty of his fellow
human beings and the lot of the "proletariat." The daily struggle for
survival in the primitive cultural conditions of the era gave the
Führer a deep understanding of his fellow working class citizens.
It was also a necessity of fate that he served at the Front during the
World War, for he learned a contempt of danger. He became hard. The
war brought him together with all levels of the German people and
showed him the destructiveness of class and rank. Most importantly, it
taught him to understand the people and to speak their language.
The revolutionary year 1918 was a necessity of fate for Adolf Hitler,
for despite its criminal leadership it cleared away relics of the past
that later would have created difficulties for the National Socialist
Revolution. And the revolt of 1918 brought signs of collapse and
revealed with naked clarity the international forces and their
destructive effects on Germany in a way that created the psychological
prerequisites that enabled the hard measures of the later National
Socialist government to succeed.
The attempt to seize power in November 1923 was ordained by fate, just
as was its bloody collapse. If the Fuehrer had not acted then, the
masses would later have lost faith in him as a Fuehrer when he
constantly called for patience and postponed the seizure of power.
Only his willingness to act resolutely when necessary, as demonstrated
in November 1923, provided the proof that he would when necessary take
the most forceful course. It proved that he chose to renounce force in
the years before 1933 not because he was a coward. And National
Socialism could not have taken power in 1923, since the people were
not yet ready for National Socialism, nor was National Socialism ready
to lead the people. What was obvious to everyone in Germany in 1933
would have seemed arrogance in 1923. The supporters of the parties of
that day had not yet had sufficient time to recognize the weaknesses
of their leaders.
The narrowest chance of fate prevented the Führer from entering the
government in 1932. He would have been joined with men who inwardly
were still his enemies and would have caused great damage as members
of the government.
And surely it was providence that preserved the life of the old Field
Marshall and Reich President to enable his good name and protecting
hand to guard the young National Socialist government until Adolf
Hitler's abilities as a leader had been proven to everyone at home and
abroad, until his reputation was sufficient to assume the full
leadership of the Reich.
Providence has clearly been at work in Adolf Hitler's life. Only so
can we understand how this man, the son of a minor official, withstood
hunger and privation and fought unaided powerful enemies in the press
and business, powerful parties at home and abroad, to become the
Führer of one of the great nations of the world, chancellor of the
German Reich, holder of the office of Reich President. This is a
miracle without precedent in the history of the world. In the midst of
bitter need, a people finds the man to rescue it. There is a force of
history at work here which we still do not understand.
The need of our people was great. A great man was required to meet it.
Providence gave him the gifts and the strength to move on both in good
times and bad, enabling him over the course of time to reach his goal:
the salvation of Germany!
Providence works through in a way both inexplicable yet clear to all
who have the good fortune to be near to him. How often has he said to
me: "I know that my decision or action is correct. I cannot explain at
the moment why, but I feel that it is right and the future will prove
it so." Invariably the course of events proved that the inexplicable
feelings of the Führer led him down a sure path.
The great historian Treitschke held the ability to see things
correctly as the decisive ability of a statesman, more important even
than talent. What leader has ever had this ability more than Adolf
Hitler? The proof is in his speeches, even those from 1920. Rarely
have political conditions and developments been predicted more
accurately, seldom have conclusions been drawn more clearly, thanks to
his ability to see the fundamental nature of the most difficult and
complicated things.
The "simple understanding" of the genius is able to see the essential
and the obvious.
The Fuehrer adds to the ability to see correctly, which the historian
sees as more critical than talent, not only talent, but also genius.
The ability to see correctly, along with genius, to which must be
added the workings of providence, gives us an explanation for the
miracle that has happened before our eyes in the past few years,
particularly since Hitler's assumption of power.
Is not the transformation of our people a miracle! It shows itself in
its return to its essence, to the sources of its strength, in its
reawakening pride and honor, in its will to self assertion in the
world, in its ability to free itself from international poisons and
from signs of corruption in all areas of life! Is it a miracle that
Adolf Hitler won the battle against unemployment in so short a time?
That he put people to work to meet daily needs as well as to advance
culture? The great highways, canals and buildings will proclaim to
coming generations the Hitler Era of the German people. Is it not a
miracle that a nation once divided by class and rank, divided by petty
state pride in Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and elsewhere-now works
together with mutual understanding for the great common tasks and for
the preservation of the nation and its people?
As I said when I began, I cannot explain why Hitler, and only he, can
be the Fuehrer. Who could suggest someone worthier and more able to
fill the office of Reich President, the highest leader of the Reich?
Someone might say that it is not good to put all power in one hand.
Let me reply that in a difficult time the Romans gave full power to a
young and capable leader - and the Romans knew something about
governing! They knew that "men make history." They knew that in times
of crisis, strong personalities must guide the state, personalities
bound to the living essence of their people.
Someone may say that it is not good to put all power in one hand,
since Adolf Hitler might use his authority arbitrarily and
thoughtlessly!
To that I can only say: The conscience of a moral personality is a far
greater protection against the misuse of an office than is the
supervision of parliament or the separation of powers. I know no one
who has a stronger conscience, or is more true to his people, than
Adolf Hitler.
Over the years I have seem him struggle to make difficult decisions,
always checking again and again with the experts in the field until he
was certain that his decision was absolutely correct. I know how many
sleepless nights his decision to take Germany out of the League of
Nations cost him, how he listened to all who had objections. I know
that he was unable to rest until he had refuted them by clear logic.
Only then did he decide, and accepted the full responsibility.
The Führer's highest court is his conscience and his responsibility to
his people and to history.
He will also from time to time allow the people itself to pass
judgment on his general policy. This will regularly reaffirm his
leadership.
He knows that both his honor and his work are at risk. He cannot pass
the responsibility for his decisions to irresponsible parliamentary
majorities, as do the statesmen of all other nations. That also means
that his freedom of action is not restricted or watered down by
parliamentary bodies or other forces. This above all is why in
desperate times people and nations need an absolute leader - assuming
he possesses the necessary abilities - and why such a leader can be
necessary to the continued existence of the government and people.
Treitschke said that absolute leadership is either the best or the
worst form of government, depending on the personality of the leader.
We know that Adolf Hitler is both born and called to be a leader, and
that he has shown himself through all his actions to be a morally
upright person. As sole ruler he is the best possible form of
government for Germany - and Heaven knows that in its current crisis
Germany needs the best possible form of government!
A Fuehrer whose goal is to serve his people is in times of crisis a
better guarantee of peace to other nations than is a parliamentary
majority, which may lack the will at the critical moment to keep its
people from stumbling into misfortune, as Lloyd George suggested the
nations stumbled into the World War. In recent weeks, Adolf Hitler has
made rapid and firm decisions advancing the cause of peace in Europe
that demonstrate his statesmanship. Those states who today oppose us
may not be willing to admit it, but history will.
German citizens! Consider with all seriousness the international
significance of the referendum on 19 August. Talk with everyone in
your circle of acquaintances-family members, workmates, relatives,
with everyone you come in contact with. Remember that the world is
watching to see if a united German people will be loyal to its
Fuehrer.
Hundreds of thousands of journalists are waiting to announce the
expected collapse of National Socialism to their readers. They will do
this if even a few less Germans go to the polls than did on 12
November of last year. They hope for a collapse of National Socialism,
for they know this would mean the collapse of Germany.
By voting yes on 19 August, the German people will demonstrate to the
world that we see in Adolf Hitler the Fuehrer given to us by
providence. We Germans approve of what he has done at home and abroad
for Germany and trust his decisions for the future. Germany sees Adolf
Hitler as Hindenburg's proper successor. The entire German people now
gives Hitler the name of honor that the National Socialist movement
has long given him: the Fuehrer!
This word is more that a title, it is a confession and a certainty: My
Fuehrer!
Furthermore, the entire German people says to the world: Adolf Hitler
is and will remain our Fuehrer, because his policies are the policies
of the entire German nation. His rule guarantees Germany's stability.
Through him and his movement, Germany has become a unified Reich.
Since we want to remain a united German Reich, we want Adolf Hitler at
our head. Since we know that power struggles between individuals or
interest groups are unthinkable and impossible under his leadership,
we want him as Germany's leader.
Through him, Fate realizes its purpose: Saving Germany from the hunger
of misery of Bolshevism. We firmly believe that saving Germany from
Bolshevism also rescued Europe from the danger of red annihilation. We
Germans see it as our duty to thank Fate by affirming this man as the
Fuehrer of Germany.
One more thing the German people want to say to the world on 19
August: We want the work begun in Hitler's name to continue: the
battle against unemployment, the freeing of our conscience, the moral
renewal of Germany's youth, the strengthening of our sense of honor.
We Germans know that Hitler wants what we all want: economic equality
with the other nations of the world, the political and military peace
with the other peoples of the world, a return to prosperity and
culture after decades of decline and decay.
This we say to our Fuehrer on 19 August: We are bound to you in an
indissoluble unity in the fight for Germany's future. With you, we
long for the preservation of peace and are prepared to follow your
command to defend our people's peace.
We are proud and happy to have one of history's greats, a son of our
people, among us during our life times. The yes that we give affirms
his leadership to the world, and thanks him at the same time.
German workers! I speak particularly to you. Be proud that you may on
19 August affirm as leader of Germany a man of the German working
class. Be proud that you may symbolically say to one of your own on 19
August: We want you, Adolf Hitler, as German Chancellor and German
Reich President, you, a German worker! Where once kings, Kaisers and
presidents ruled Germany, now by our will and the will of the German
people stands for the first time a German worker. He is a worker who
knows how hard the life of his former comrades still is, those who
must struggle daily for their basic needs, and whose goal is above all
to improve their lot as quickly as possible.
My fellow German citizens! You will vote yes for Adolf Hitler! And if
you are asked why you voted for him, you will be able to answer:
We voted for Adolf Hitler:
Because he is the man who from his experiences as a Front soldier
developed a world view that is the foundation for all that is
happening in Germany.
Because his fifteen year struggle against a hostile world is a model
of strength and courage.
Because he always acts at the right moment, thereby showing that he is
a heroic leader.
Because he does nothing for himself, but everything for Germany and
for the future of his people.
Because he has given all of us a new faith in Germany.
Because he has given our lives meaning once more by showing us why we
Germans are on the earth.
Because he is the instrument of the will of a higher power.
In sum, because he is a true Fuehrer!
With our yes votes, we Germans will say on 19 August:
To you, our Fuehrer, we pledge our loyalty - Adolf Hitler, we believe
in you!
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACOG" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
19 Aug 2007 05:00:57 PM |
|
|
On 2007-08-19, Topaz postulated:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:50:20 GMT, ACOG <A.Cantankerous@Old.Git> wrote:
Which you just so happened to have handy, huh?
Here's one from Sebastian Haffner's "Defying Hitler"
Hitler himself, his past, his character and his
speeches were still rather a handicap for the
movement that gathered around him.
BS
IOW, steee-ryck! (I'll have a goldfish in a bag please. ;)
Rudolf Hess :
"National Socialists! Fellow German citizens!
I have rarely given a speech as difficult as this one. It is a
challenge to attempt to prove the good of something as obvious as
Hitler's assumption of Hindenburg's position. For fourteen years I
have been convinced that he is the only man able to master Germany's
fate. This conviction has grown over the years, as the original
emotional feeling found new support in endless ways that have
demonstrated Adolf Hitler's remarkable leadership abilities. It is
hard for me, now that I see the realization of fourteen years of
hopes, to gather the various reasons that explain how Adolf Hitler has
become the highest and only Fuehrer of the German people.
Kinda like asking Rummy what he thinks about Dubya really.
BTW, do you have a picture of Adolf on your bedroom wall then?
--
ACOG_in_the_machine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Why the gun is civilization |
20 Aug 2007 06:41:10 PM |
|
|
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 | | | | | | | | |
