Simply beautiful and I couldn't catch my breath reading this little article. Although I didn't learn anything that I didn't already know about the historical treachery and perfidy and lies of Anglo-Americans, but it's good to be periodically reminded about the true nature of the forces of darkness.

Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt and Bush: The Banality of Betrayal

by Morgan Reynolds

Poke holes in the government’s ludicrous account of what happened on 9/11 and mention the possibility (likelihood) of it being an inside job, and the first reply is likely to be, "No, that’s impossible because there would be too many people involved." Many people simply refuse to believe that Misters Bush-Cheney-Powell-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith would risk the mass murder of 3,000 innocent Americans just to rev up America’s juices for some good old-fashioned violence abroad. No, too many loose lips would sink the U.S.S. Conspiracy, goes the argument.

But an excursion back in time reveals evidence for small, mid-size and large conspiracies at the top. U.S. entry into the misnamed Great War, for example, was aided by "black ops." While President Woodrow Wilson called for neutrality in his political speeches in 1914 and 1915, akin to Mr. Bush’s 2000 declaration against nation-building and support for "a more humble foreign policy," Wilson wrote a secret letter to the leaders of the British government, reinforced by frequent visits from Wilson’s primary adviser, Colonel House, pledging to bring America into the European war on the Allied side to guarantee a decisive win (the history recounted here is based on the thorough research of John V. Denson’s magnificent, "Roosevelt and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception," here). Afterward, the fool in the White House planned to impose his wonderful, worldwide permanent peace (such megalomania about remaking the world in our image sounds familiar today, doesn’t it?). Before sending our boys "over there, over there," into enemy machine gun fire, however, a public change of heart was needed.

Fortunately, the resourceful Winston Churchill, then first lord of the Admiralty (Franklin D. Roosevelt was Woodrow Wilson’s assistant secretary of the Navy, learning treachery on the job) was standing by to provide some "oomph" for U.S. entry into the war. Just prior to war, the Cunard steamship company in England received a government subsidy to build the Lusitania, the world’s fastest ocean liner. The subsidy allowed government to take it over during war and the government had designed a secret compartment for weapons and ammunition aboard ship. On the fateful voyage, the British admiralty under Churchill’s leadership, changed captains, substituting Captain William Turner for the usual captain. As the Lusitania neared its destination, the Admiralty ordered the military escort ship, the Juno, to abandon its usual mission, thereby leaving the ocean liner without protection from submarines. The Lusitania was not told that it was then alone, nor that a German sub was directly in its path, facts known to the Admiralty. The Admiralty ordered Captain Turner to reduce his speed, thereby making the Lusitania an easy torpedo target. When the Lusitania sank, over 100 Americans lost their lives. At a hearing in England following the disaster, Captain Turner was disgraced and found guilty of negligence, deflecting attention from Churchill and the Admiralty, just as the American commanders at Pearl Harbor would later become scapegoats for the disaster of December 7, 1941.

OK, put the Lusitania aside as so much small change to hasten U.S. entry into WWI. FDR set a whole new standard. First, consider the espionage operation in the U.S. by our erstwhile ally, Great Britain, steering the U.S. into war and paralleling the espionage of today’s neocon cabal. A Canadian citizen by the name of William Stephenson later became known by his code name, Intrepid. He was a personal friend of Winston Churchill who set up a secret organization rent-free in Rockefeller Center in New York. The purpose was to help those likable rascals Roosevelt and Churchill bring America into the war through false propaganda, creation of false documents, and whatever means were necessary, allegedly including murder. One of the organization’s secret agents was Ian Fleming, subsequent creator of 007, James Bond.

Two false documents proved noteworthy. First, Intrepid cooked up a false map that Roosevelt knowingly used in a national radio speech on October 27, 1941. This document allegedly was obtained from a German spy and purported to show Hitler’s secret plans to invade South America, thereby posing an imminent danger to America. Detect the similarity with Bush’s tale in his State of the Union message about the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger? Second, Intrepid managed to plant a false document in Hitler’s hands on December 3, 1941, purporting to show Roosevelt’s secret plan to preemptively strike Germany without a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. When Hitler suddenly declared war against America on December 11, 1941, almost everyone except Churchill, Roosevelt, and Intrepid was surprised.

It boggles the mind, I know, to find out what Roosevelt and Churchill did to get America into a war with Germany. Intrepid used one dirty trick after another. He smeared people like Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford as Nazi sympathizers, supplied mistresses to shut up anti-interventionist opponents like Republican Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg of Michigan, altered Gallup poll results, and helped rig the Republican nomination for Wendell Wilkie who had the same foreign policy as FDR, rather like the establishment John Kerry overtaking dissident Howard Dean.

Intrepid must have had some fun. Intrepid built on the model of Sir William Wiseman, head of the British Secret Service in America in World War I, who played a major role in getting the U.S. into that war. Wilson’s adviser, Colonel House, "habitually permitted Sir William Wiseman…to sit in his private office in New York and read the most secret documents of the American Government. House’s father and mother had both been English" (Denson quotation, p. 490).

But FDR’s perfidy magnifique was the "surprise" attack at Pearl Harbor. It was a day of infamy alright. The Pearl Harbor attack was about as big a surprise as 9/11 was to insiders three years ago. The American people were adamantly opposed to fighting another European war after Wilson lied them into World War I. Roosevelt labored away at provoking Germany and Japan and finally got what he wanted by maneuvering Japan into firing first. In January, 1940, he ordered the Pacific fleet transferred from its home base at San Diego to Pearl, so that it would be vulnerable to carrier attack with little air cover or support (reminiscent of the air defense "stand down" on 9/11). In May, 1940, it was announced that the entire fleet would remain at Pearl indefinitely, a suicidal departure from naval policy, and Roosevelt transferred ships to the Atlantic, weakening the Pacific fleet and trying to provoke the Germans into firing the first shot. When the commander of the Pacific fleet, Admiral James O. Richardson, visited the White House to protest these absurd orders, Roosevelt fired him.

Following in his idol’s (Wilson’s) footsteps, Roosevelt campaigned as a dove ("Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars") while sending alter ego Harry Hopkins to London to promise American entry into the war. On July 25, 1941, Roosevelt ordered all Japanese assets in the United States "frozen," thus shutting down commerce between the two. Combined with identical orders from the British and Dutch, Japan was cut off from direct purchase in oil markets. Roosevelt refused to negotiate with the moderate Konoye government, soon replaced by the militaristic Mr. Tojo. Roosevelt had painted Japan into a corner.

Reassuring Pearl commanders that they were continually supplied with updated information, Roosevelt concealed. American cryptographers had cracked the diplomatic and naval or military codes of the Japanese. The Japanese fleet sailed on November 25, 1941, and did not maintain radio silence up through December 7, 1941. American cryptographers decoded its communications and sent them directly to Roosevelt. Directional radio finders tracked the fleet all the way. Meanwhile, Navy officials declared the North Pacific Ocean a "Vacant Sea" to clear out traffic for the approaching Japanese. When Admiral Husband E. Kimmel tried to defend Pearl Harbor by searching for a Japanese carrier force north of Hawaii, the area where Japan planned to launch her attack, the White House ordered him out.

An elaborate cover up followed, naturally. Hundreds of insiders knew the score, but were shut up by self-censorship, threatened imprisonment, disgrace and loss of benefits. So much for the "it’s too big" objection to conspiracy. Roosevelt formed a commission to investigate only what happened at Pearl itself, not what went on in Washington, D.C. A limited hang out, cover-up commission sounds familiar. Roosevelt’s commission held secret hearings (yup) and neither commander at Pearl was allowed to submit evidence or call witnesses and they were completely denied due process. The commission found them solely at fault and they were forced to resign in disgrace. Condemning the findings, Admiral Richardson who preceded Admiral Kimmel at Pearl said: "It is the most unfair, unjust and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the government printing office. I cannot conceive of honorable men serving on the commission without greatest regret and deepest feelings of shame" (Denson, p. 515).

There were ten official inquiries into Pearl Harbor, but it wasn’t until the arrival of Robert Stinnet’s painstakingly-researched book of 17 years, aided by the Freedom of Information Act, that we discover the truth about Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt has his huge monument on the mall, including his nonsense statement, "I hate war," to deceive the tourists. Establishment historians rank him among the top three presidents of all time. I guess Mr. Roosevelt’s crimes on behalf of a "good cause" were just fine and dandy. As historian Arthur Schlesinger rationalizes, both Lincoln and Roosevelt "did what they thought they had to do to save the republic" (Denson quotation, p. 519). Good intentions mean so very, very much to a Harvard historian.

It took 59 years to learn the truth about Pearl Harbor. Maybe we can shorten the time span to arrive at the truth about 9/11.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds8.html

Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt and Bush: The Banality of Betrayal

Good choice, I was just about to post this.

England and USA are mixed-race,mixed-caste countries organized around the concept of economic aspiration. That in itself is death for all finer things.

Amen.

Most Americans are basically rootless, alienated, judaised racial bastards. This was already noted by Hitler and Goebbels who viewed Americans as racial mongrels under jewish domination.

As to the Semitized English, they're well on their way to commit racial/cultural suicide by miscegenating themselves out of existence at at a frightening rate. Forgive me for not shedding any tears...

As to the Semitized English, they're well on their way to commit racial/cultural suicide by miscegenating themselves out of existenceat at a frightening rate. Forgive me for not shedding any tears...
A-f*cking-men pal. Those bastards are choosing their fate. They're also the only country in Europe (I am mistaken, Sweden too) which has large scale immigration but no significant political movement which offers at least some token resistance. They are so eager to face the abyss, well: happy falling guys, have fun. :)

An invasion of South America with Barbarossa stalling , from a country which could not cross the English Channel ?
It does beg the question just how was this might invasion force to be transported and how was it to get there given the obvious distance from Germany.
Let us also not forget that Germany was becoming increasingly involved in North Africa.
You will pardon me whilst I go outside and laugh.

A-f*cking-men pal. Those bastards are choosing their fate. They're also the only country in Europe (I am mistaken, Sweden too) which has large scale immigration but no significant political movement which offers at least some token resistance. They are so eager to face the abyss, well: happy falling guys, have fun. :)

BNP.

What is the Swedish version of the BNP?

If the bastards he's speaking of are the WWII generation, they're mostly dead. The world wars never end on the internet. :|

Well, the article is actually about Bush... but I doubt there will be any argument on this forum about his worth. :p

Bush, the advocate of crazy supernaturalism and racial suicide + environmental holocaust + totally boring conformist society? Nah, he's grrrreat.

lol, maybe JD8 will post.

Bush, the advocate of crazy supernaturalism and racial suicide + environmental holocaust + totally boring conformist society? Nah, he's grrrreat.
Are you responding to someone, or was that just some sort of failed attempt at troll baiting?

It's OK. He was just sarcastically responding to my post in an agreeable manner.

Ok, I was just confused because I don't think anyone here likes Bush.

Yeah, that was the point. :)

If the bastards he's speaking of are the WWII generation, they're mostly dead. The world wars never end on the internet. :|

No, no, no I'm talking about the current (and past) generation of bastards and liars. :)

I object to Wilsons addition to that despicable list.

Lets look at some history:

Woodrow Wilson is on the enemies list of many conservatives who see his love affair with the League of Nations as a precursor to national capitulation and One World Government. But he, too, was a committed racialist who kept Princeton University all white when he was in charge, and made sure, as President, that white bureaucrats did not have to sit next to blacks. After a private showing of D.W. Griffith's movie, Birth of a Nation, attended by selected senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court chief justice Edward White, he remarked admiringly that the film wrote "history with lightening."

Link: www.amren.com/004issue/004issue.html#cover

My opinion iz that Wilson had no idea that the League of Nations and other foreign follies would spiral out of control and lead to the present horrible situation. (Bear in mind such adventures had never even been attempted before) The man was a committed Racialist who made some mistakes. To compare him to the others who did see the errors that were made during the fratricide of World War 1 just isn't right.

BNP.

What is the Swedish version of the BNP?
I said SIGNIFICANT. The BNP is nothing, and will never grow to any size.

Wilson's neoconfederate sympathies don't keep him off the list as by far the worst President of all time.

FDR and LBJ weren't even close to that asshole.

I have only British guests in my Hotel and they are quite easy going and nice fellows. I would certainly not cast such slander on them due to their jewified leaders.

Link: www.amren.com/004issue/004issue.html#cover
The man was a committed Racialist who made some mistakes. To compare him to the others who did see the errors that were made during the fratricide of World War 1 just isn't right.

This shows why "committed racialist" isn't enough. One needs a broader concept than race-only.

Positive values, which are consistent throughout the ages, if emphasized will restore all aspects of civilization, including race.

Neoclassical I agree whole heartedly. One must understand that Wilson made mistakes. He was moving in uncharted territory (although he should have been smart enough to heed the Founding Racists er.. Fathers warnings not to get involved in foreign affairs from long ago)

The others on that list, Churchill, Bush, Rosenfeld, have the benefit of seeing the race-suicide that occured during WW1, Wilson did not have that benefit and hencforth made some mistakes. To hold him to the same level of responsibility for the current mess just doesn't seem right, thatz all.

Neoclassical I agree whole heartedly. One must understand that Wilson made mistakes. He was moving in uncharted territory (although he should have been smart enough to heed the Founding Racists er.. Fathers warnings not to get involved in foreign affairs from long ago)

The others on that list, Churchill, Bush, Rosenfeld, have the benefit of seeing the race-suicide that occured during WW1, Wilson did not have that benefit and hencforth made some mistakes. To hold him to the same level of responsibility for the current mess just doesn't seem right, thatz all.
Woodrow Wilson is far more responsible for the current mess then any of them.

Woodrow( may his soul be tortured for 10 billion eons) begat Hitler, communism( if Germany won the Bolsheviks would have outlived their usefullness and the USSR would have been strangled in the craddle), and islamic fundism.

That there have been few statesmen and many gangsters since is the result of his messianic idiocy.

FDR and Churchill were at least thinking in terms of cold blooded realpolitik for their own countries not in terms of self righteous crap. Oh btw from a strictly racialist pov FDR was the best prez in US history, he very strictly enforced the immigration act of 1924. Very few immigrants( yes he even denied the jews trying to escape the Reich any accomodation. It all had to be done by the book according to the 1924 act) were let in during his admin and they were nearly all white.

:: Most Americans are basically rootless, alienated, judaised racial bastards.

No country on Earth is more disgusting, corrupt, and decadent than the Federal Republic of Germany.

:: This was already noted by Hitler and Goebbels who viewed Americans as racial mongrels under jewish domination.

That's funny. Goebbels does not strike me as your typical Nordic superman. I recall someone suggesting he had Indonesian blood in him. Is that true?

:: As to the Semitized English. . .

Hilarious. Which nation just provided Israel with nuclear submarines?

:: they're well on their way to commit racial/cultural suicide by miscegenating themselves out of existence at at a frightening rate.

I have seen similar numbers coming out of Germany. There is also far more resistance to thirdworldization in Britain, France, and Holland than in Germany.

:: Forgive me for not shedding any tears...

So how is life in New Turkey these days?

So why are we in the situation we are in today? Look no further than the national chauvinists and romantic extremists who put their 19th century delusions of national glory above fighting the Jews and institutionalising racialism. Germany above all equals Germany and Europe in flames. And few people, myself amongst them, want to go back down that road.

Well, looking at this directly...

The problem is a global liberalizing influence. It has many origins, but how to remove it?

My answer is to oppose it with integralist belief, as liberalism is fundamentally a deconstructive belief system.

The FDR and UK and USA all have it, in varying degrees. We can bicker over which nation sucks me after we remove it.

I also don't see "the Jews" as the problem - I see them as a problem which occurs because liberalization allows them to be tolerated outside of their own nation.

I highly recommend you read The Collapse of British Power by Correlli Barnett. He explains in great detail how early 19th century evangelical Christianity is ultimately to blame for the collapse of the British Empire (not to mention the corruption of the U.S.). And contrary to what some have asserted on this forum, this disgusting moralizing attitude so typical of Anglo Saxons today is not immutable. It only came about during the Enlightenment. I will post excerpts later.

I highly recommend you read The Collapse of British Power by Correlli Barnett. He explains in great detail how early 19th century evangelical Christianity is ultimately to blame for the collapse of the British Empire (not to mention the corruption of the U.S.). And contrary to what some have asserted on this forum, this disgusting moralizing attitude so typical of Anglo Saxons today is not immutable. It only came about during the Enlightenment. I will post excerpts later.

I would trace the characteristic to Elizabethan England. I wonder what Wintermute will say to your theory in general though.
:cool:

"In the eighteenth century the English ruling classes -- squirearchy, merchants, aristocracy -- were men hard of mind and hard of will. Aggressive and acquisitive, they saw foreign policy in terms of concrete interest: markets, national resources, colonial real estate, naval bases, profits. At the same time they were concerned to preserve the independence and parliamentary institutions of England in the face of the hostility of European absolute monarchies. Liberty and interest alike seemed to the Georgians therefore to demand a strategic approach to international relations. They saw national power as the essential foundation of national independence; commercial wealth as a means to power; and war as among the means to all three. They accepted it as natural and inevitable that nations should be engaged in a ceaseless struggle for survival, prosperity and predominance. Such public opinion as existed in the eighteenth century did not dissent from this world-view. The House of Commons itself reflected the unsentimental realism of an essentially rural society. Patriotism coupled with dislike and suspicion of foreigners were perhaps the only emtoions that leavened the vigorous English pursuit of their interests; a pursuit softened but hardly impeded by the mutual convenience and decencies of international custom and good manners.

Between 1689 and 1815, in the face of formidable rivals and despite the loss of America, England grew from a second-rank nation on the periphery of the Continent into a great power whose wealth, stability and liberty were the envy of Europe.

When however Wellington waved on his red-coats after the routed French at Waterloo on 18 June 1815, it marked for the English the apparent end of centuries of struggle with European great powers. The British Empire was at least supreme and safe. And during the next thirty years of tranquil security from external menace and of bounding industrial development, the British outlook on international relations and on England's role in the world underwent profound changes. The traditional strategic view became more and more discredited on two grounds: in the first place because the currently unchallenged British world supremacy in commerce and manafactures rendered protected and exclusive imperial markets and sources of raw material unnecessary or even cramping; and secondly because it became more and more generally felt by public opinion that moral principle and moral purpose rather than strategy or mere interest alone should be the inspiration of English policy. For in the course of the first half of the nineteenth century a moral revolution was completed in England; a revolution which was in the long term to exercise decisive influence on the shaping and conduct of English foreign policy. It is indeed in the transformation of the British character and outlook by this moral revolution that lies the first cause, from which all else was to spring, of the British plight in 1940."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Co, Inc, 1972), pp.20-21

The revolution had begun to gather momentum in the late Georgian age; a peculiarly English manifestation of the romantic movement common to all Western Europe. The essence of romanticism was to value feeling above calculation or judgement. Romanticism exalted sentiment -- soon crudened into sentimentality -- over sense. Romantics themselves yielded willingly to their hot-flowing emotions. And, in turn, their emotions governed their thoughts and actions, inspiring visions of the noble and the ideal which freed them from the limitations of the world as it was, and human nature as it was; uplifting them from mere consideration of material interest to fidelity to high principles.

When however Wellington waved on his red-coats after the routed French at Waterloo on 18 June 1815, it marked for the English the apparent end of centuries of struggle with European great powers. The British Empire was at least supreme and safe.

As much as I disagree with the two minute hate drill against the English that is the subject of this thread (and I hate to wish to defend the English :D ), this is too much.

Supreme and safe??? Give me a break. When was the territorial integrity of England *not* safe during the relevant time period save for perhaps the Armada? In order to make a procrustean fit, I assume the author is including Ireland ans Scotland as English, hence the "British Empire."

And you dont see the rise of Cromwell, Wycliff et al as a largely particular English manifestation of the now recognized English penchant for moral busybodyness?

The revolution had begun to gather momentum in the late Georgian age; a peculiarly English manifestation of the romantic movement common to all Western Europe. The essence of romanticism was to value feeling above calculation or judgement. Romanticism exalted sentiment -- soon crudened into sentimentality -- over sense. Romantics themselves yielded willingly to their hot-flowing emotions. And, in turn, their emotions governed their thoughts and actions, inspiring visions of the noble and the ideal which freed them from the limitations of the world as it was, and human nature as it was; uplifting them from mere consideration of material interest to fidelity to high principles.

For the first time since the doctrinaire seventeenth century a concern for principle had begun to manifest itself in politics by the early part of George III's reign, when, for example, the war against the rebellious American colonies was denounced by politicians like Burke as unjust as well as unwise. Edmund Burke was himself among the most famous and eloquent of early advocates of idealistic purpose as a guide to national policy, although the Members of Parliament of his own time so little relished his high-mindedness that he was known as the dinner bell, his rising to speak being the signal for men to depart the chamber in search of mutton chops. Nevertheless abstract principle continued to wax in favour in British politics. After 1793 Charles James Fox attacked the war with revolutionary France as being an attempt to crush a noble experiment in human liberty rather than the parrying of a national danger. Radicals of the day, like Samuel Whitbread, the brewer MP, were even more passionately moralistic in denouncing English policy and excusing French actions, thereby setting a pattern of emotional response to be followed by the romantic left of politics down to the present day.

However, it was religion which was to give the romantic movement in England its singularly moralistic direction and force. The eighteenth century founders of Methodism, the evangelists Wesley and Whitefield, although standing in an older tradition, brought to life a new religious emotionalism by loosing men's feelings in vast open-air assemblies tumultuous with mass-hysteria; the archetypes of the mass-meetings of future democracy and its political demagoguery. From the Methodists themselves, the flame of emotionalism leaped and ran through the traditional but now torpid nonconformist sects. It ignited even the Church of England, a body which in the late eighteenth century might have been regarded as wholly proof against feelings stronger and deeper than those of respect for the squire or for a well-roasted goose. The Church of England revivalists, the so-called 'evangelicals' or 'saints', such as William Wilberforce, Hannah More and their friends, carried intense religious emotion and zeal for righteousness into the upper-middle classes. By the opening years of the nineteenth century all British Churches and sects, regardless of doctrine, had been set aflame. And the evangelical attitude to religion, indeed its attitude to the whole of personal and public life, spoke to the hearts of the future rulers of England, the rising middle classes of the towns.

To evangelicals morality was no mere matter of pragmatic observance of the laws and mores of a society; no unconscious affair of habit; not something to be taken for granted. On the contrary, their attitude to morality was higly self-conscious; they saw it as an intensely personal question, to be answered according to strict doctrinaire principle. For evangelicals were tormented by a sense of what they called 'sin', a term which covered most aspects of human nature, and especially its strongest and most basic impulses. 'Sin' was to be conquered by earnest prayer in the course of private struggles of conscience conducted in a state of spiritual abasement. Evangelicals therefore saw human existence in all its rich complexity in simple terms of good and evil, right and wrong. They had no doubt at all that they were, although sinful, right. Indeed, their pew-hard certainty, on which no outside evidence could make an impression, was a distinguishing characteristic.

The importance of evangelicalism in terms of future British attitudes to world affairs lay in that it did not limit itself to theology or private examination of the soul, but saw religion as a rule-book to govern every aspect of personal, social and international life. In the words of Sir Edward Barker: 'It has indeed been a feature common to the Evangelical and Catholic sections of the English Church -- and, for that matter, a feature common to both with various nonconformist societies . . . that they have all sought to make religion a general social force.'

Traditional English pragmatism was therefore threatened by the onset of a rigid concern for doctrinaire principle. No less significant for the future tone of British politics and foreign policy was the emphasis of evangelical religion on humanitarian concern and pacifistic sentiment. This was the theological aspect of the new middle-class sentimentality that Dickens both tapped and stimulated, the compassion first manifested by the philanthropists of the eighteenth century. In the past religion had often served rather to justify struggle with one's fellow men. St. Athanasius, for example, in the early Christian era, declared that it was lawful to kill enemies in war. There is no biblical disapproval of slavery, although the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 as a result of a campaign led by William Wilberforce and of slavery itself in the British Empire in 1833 were the earliest of the great social achievements of British evangelicalism. Religious bigotry had served Cromwell and his Ironsides only to whet their resolution in battle. But while it is true that evangelical religion was to inspire some ruthless English men of action in the nineteenth century -- General Gordon; the Lawrence brothers who administered the newly-won Punjab -- these were nevertheless exceptions. To embrace one's fellow men in brotherly love rather than smite them with the sowrd of righteousness was the broad instruction of evangelicalism to the British people. As a historian of Christian pacifism observes:

. . . our concentration on the primacy of love in the nature of God, and therefore in the Gospel .. . and therefore in the social, national and international implications of the Gospel, is a relatively modern phenomenon . . . I do not find it wiht any prominence earlier than about a hundred years ago.
By 1870 evangelical Christianity, like a clove of spiritual garlic, had permeated British life.

No one will ever understand Victorian England who does not appreciate that among highly civilised countries . . . it was one of the most religious that the world has ever known. Moreover its particular type of Christianity laid a peculiarly direct emphasis on conduct . . . it became after Queen Victoria's marriage practically the religion of the court, and gripped all ranks and conditions of society. After Melbourne's departure it inspired nearly every front rank public man, save Palmerston, for four decades . . . nothing is more remarkable than the way evangelicalism in the broader sense overleaped sectarian barries and pervaded men of all creeds. . . Even Disraeli, by nature as remote from it as Palmerston, paid ever deference to it in politics.
As a consequence of this spiritual revolution English policy ceased to be founded solely on the expedient and opportunistic pursuit of English interests. International relations were no longer sen as being governed primarily by strategy, but by morality. As Gladstone put it in 1870: 'The greatest triumph of our epoch will be the consecration of the idea of a public law as the fundamental law of European politics.'

Ibid., pp.21-24

:: Supreme and safe??? Give me a break

Sure. How else would you describe Britain in relation to Europe during this period (e.g., after Napoleon)? France was humiliated. Germany and Italy had yet to be united. Spain had long been in decline. America was a distant threat. Austria was nothing but a continental power. The Russian threat was distant. Japan was a primitive feudal society.

:: When was the territorial integrity of England *not* safe during the relevant time period save for perhaps the Armada? In order to make a procrustean fit, I assume the author is including Ireland ans Scotland as English, hence the "British Empire."

You are equivocating England and the Empire. Bourbon France had long been a menace to England's overseas possessions.

:: And you dont see the rise of Cromwell, Wycliff et al as a largely particular English manifestation of the now recognized English penchant for moral busybodyness?

It most certainly was not the type of moralism we are describing here. Compare the ruthlessness of Cromwell to the meakness of Baldwin.

"Meanwhile, the lower-middle and 'respectable' working classes were also being moralised; by the Churches, above all by the nonconformist sects -- Congregationalists, Unitarians, Methodists, Baptists and Quakers. Although the great work of conversion was complete by 1870, the chapel continued to serve these social classes as the public school served their betters, as an institution which clamped succeeding generations into a spiritual corset, the whalebone of idealism at odds with the flesh of real life. For, like the public schools, the chapels, as the historian G.M. Trevelyan put it, 'regarded life (including politics and foreign policy) as a branch of personal religion."

Ibid., p.43

"Although formal religious belief and attendance at church and chapel gradually ebbed after 1870 to a low water in the 1920s, emotional ardour for all that was noble and good became a stronger, not weaker influence on British policy. For the evangelical spirit found new and secular outlets.

Humanism and Humanitarianism, Liberalism and Internationalism, [wrote Sir Herbert Butterfield] . . . emerge as a result of a tendency to translate into secular terms certain movements and aspirations which had characterised a Christian civilisation . . . humanitarianism, for example, is an anemic substitute for the doctrine of New Testament love.

The Liberal Party of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries owed much a nonconformist personnel. In 1906 there were 127 nonconformists out of 377 Liberal MPs. Nonconformists also came to dominate the trade union movement, the socialist movement and the Labour Party itself. In 1918 there were 82 Methodist candidates at the General Election, of which 49 were Liberal and 26 Labour. In 1925, 45 out of 192 Liberals MPs were lay preachers, and 28 were active pacifists. For nonconformists were natural leaders, self-educated men of serious purpose, apt for the drudgery of organisation, happy at proselytising.

Indeed the Labour Party in its whole personality was less a body for the seizing and wielding of political power than a pseudo-religion. Its early days particularly illustrate its spiritual borrowings from real, evangelical religion. A socialist could write of the Labour Party work in the early 1900s in such terms as these: 'A veritable crusade was led throughout Scotland in those years with all the fervour and fanaticism of a new holy religion . . .'

There was for example the Socialist Sunday School movement of the 1890s, with its fervent socialist songs in place of hymms, and a declaration of socialist precepts, based on 'Justice and Love' and modelled on the Ten Commandments:

We desire [proclaimed one of these precepts], to be just and loving to all fellow men and women, to work together as brothers and sisters, to be kind to every living creature and so help to form a New Society with Justice as its foundation and Love as its law.
Sentiments such as these determined the attitude of the nascent Labour Party toward foreign affairs, and inspired equally party factions who might otherwise disagree over specific issues. It was a picture of the world with all the charming innocence of Kate Greenaway's art, almost evoking to the mind Kaisers and Admiral Tirpitzes in muslin smocks melted into love by British kindness.

The innocence nad unreality were not limited to free-trade liberals or the Labour movement. In the late nineteenth century there was a great deal of hybridising between the three original species of Victorian romanticism -- rational abstraction, evangelical religion and simple sentimentalism. In terms of international relations, the result was a romantic idealism which believed that the whole world was well on the way to becoming one highly moral society -- like Britain itself. Mankind was taken to be essentially good and kind and rational. His natural condition was believed to be peaceful harmony because the interests of all nations were naturally harmonious. That mankind's history to that date had been mostly concerned with struggle, ambition, greed and violence was attributed to evil governments and social systems. Once these were removed, harmony and love would prevail. The fundamental relationship between human groups was not competitive and strategic, but moral. International relations were therefore not governed by power but by moral law. Moral law was believed to be inherently capable of restraining the wrongdoer."

Ibid., pp.44-46

It should be noted that Germany and Sweden also have a long history of evangelical Protestant Christianity. So it should not be all that surprising to see a similar decadence there.

Woodrow( may his soul be tortured for 10 billion eons) begat Hitler, communism( if Germany won the Bolsheviks would have outlived their usefullness and the USSR would have been strangled in the craddle), and islamic fundism.

How did Wilson begat communism when he allowed US troops to land in Mother Russia in 1918 to help the White (Czarist) Russians?!?!?!? That iz fighting commies, not begating them.

The Expedition to Archangel was a Joint Allied (British, French, and American) operation during 1918 and 1919 officially to stabilise the Eastern Front following the Russian Revolution and safeguard the large concentration of military stores which had been sent to Archangel and other Western military interests in the area, though secretly it was intended to support the White Russians against the Bolsheviks. The Allied force succeeded in capturing Murmansk in July 1918 and then bombarded Archangel by air and sea, taking the city in August 1918. The Bolsheviks were driven from the area and a new local government established. However by early 1919, Archangel was little more than an enclave in an otherwise almost entirely Bolshevik country and it was evacuated during August and September 1919. The expedition had three main objectives: to safeguard the large concentration of military stores which had been sent to the Russians and which lay in Archangel; to safeguard the flank of the Murmansk Expedition; and to try to stabilise the Eastern Front and make contact with the Czech Legion and the White Russian forces of Admiral Alexander Kolchak. A mixed force of British, French, and American troops occupied Murmansk in July 1918. Using this as a base, the Allied naval squadron, with air support, attacked and captured Modiuga Island, some 48 km north of Archangel, which allowed them to bypass Bolshevik defences and enter Archangel. A land force then cleared the valleys of the rivers Dvina and Vaga and defeated the Bolshevik forces which had been occupying Archangel. A local government was formed and formally recognised and several thousand Russians enlisted with the Allies. After the Armistice, the Bolsheviks were able to concentrate troops in the area and by early 1919 there seemed little point in holding on to this enclave in a country which had almost entirely become Bolshevik. Archangel was successfully defended until August, when withdrawal began, and the British naval
ase was finally closed and the last troops evacuated on the 27th of
September, having handed their equipment over to White Russian forces.

Link: www.probertencyclopaedia.com/FB5.HTM

Oh btw from a strictly racialist pov FDR was the best prez in US history, he very strictly enforced the immigration act of 1924. Very few immigrants( yes he even denied the jews trying to escape the Reich any accomodation. It all had to be done by the book according to the 1924 act) were let in during his admin and they were nearly all white.

Actually from a strictly racialist POV Jefferson Davis was the best President in history, but thatz alright. The fact of the matter iz FDRs cabinet was filled with jews (heck Rosenfeld himself was a jew!) and they set in place all sorts of precedents that created the first desegreation that occured in US history: the military under Truman.

I am not some huge fan of Wilsons, but perspective iz needed and to place him in there with two jews (Rosenfeld and Bush) just is not right.

How did Wilson begat communism when he allowed US troops to land in Mother Russia in 1918 to help the White (Czarist) Russians?!?!?!? That iz fighting commies, not begating them.


Wilson's puppeter "Colonel" House was most definitely a closet commie. Look up Phillip Dru, Administrator, the expeditionary force sent to Russia was paltry.

Churchill who you hate wanted a much bigger force sent to "strangle Bolshevism in the cradle".

Wilson's intervention in Europe under false pretenses destroyed Prussia and paved the way for Hitler( and sorry Hitler's 12 year reign was a disaster for Western Civ and his ghost is the best friend advocates of mass immigration and dysgenics have), saved the communists, paved the way for the "independence" of many troublesome 3rd world states, domestically his admin gave us the ""progressive" income tax, the 17th amendment, women's suffrage.

If there is any historical figure I feel active emotional hate for its Woodrow.

Wilson's puppeter "Colonel" House was most definitely a closet commie. Look up Phillip Dru, Administrator, the expeditionary force sent to Russia was paltry.

Better paltry then none at all.

Wilson's intervention in Europe under false pretenses destroyed Prussia and paved the way for Hitler( and sorry Hitler's 12 year reign was a disaster for Western Civ and his ghost is the best friend advocates of mass immigration and dysgenics have),

You may take the glass as half empty view, myself I prefer to take view the reign of THE GREAT ONE, Adolf Hitler as a beacon of hope. The glorious years when National Socialists ruled the Continent (1941 & 1942) should serve as an arrow toward the direction that should be taken.

saved the communists, paved the way for the "independence" of many troublesome 3rd world states, domestically his admin gave us the ""progressive" income tax, the 17th amendment, women's suffrage.

I have no problem with independent 3rd world states. Right now it appears the battle iz not Left vs. Right but Globalist jooz vs. ethnopluralists (those who want a Right to Difference). To quote Alain de Boinst(from 1982 I think): "Europe, 3rd world - same struggle."

Womens suffrage was granted mostly so that White Female votes would counter-act the votes of Blacks who were even in the early 1900s agitating for Snivel Rights during the Red/jew Scare. Itz been a very recent development that Females have been misusing their Enfranchisement to vote in a nanny State.

- "It should be noted that Germany and Sweden also have a long history of evangelical Protestant Christianity. So it should not be all that surprising to see a similar decadence there."


Lemme tell you - majority of Swedes at least have never been THAT enthusiastic Evangelicals. They obediently changed their religion during the Reformation because their king did, and very formally at that.

Iceland is also a "Lutheran" country, and also probably the least de-paganized country in Europe at the same time - as even GL Rockwell can testify, their sexual morals have always been quite loose, even before the onset of modern liberalism.

Think of a milder version of that "Wicker Man" island.

Dontcha try to push that blame in our direction when it doesn't fit.


Petr

I admire Yggdrasil particularly because he refuses to adopt "easy answers" - like blaming just Christianity for the ninniness of Nordics today.

Like he says here, Nordics have, above all else, their own tribal instincts to blame for their tendency for multiculturalism:

(After all, even Medish and Alpine people seem to be a lot more immune to it...)


http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ms/ms-53.htm


"The religion of civility is confined to the European Descendants of Christendom.

Cuddihy argues that in response to the bloody religious wars from 1500 - 1700 in Europe, a reaction set in during the Enlightenment (1700 - 1800) which gradually stripped religions of their intense beliefs, rendering them mere denominations capable of coexisting in a civil society.

Sir Arthur Keith would argue that the development of Cuddihy's religion of civility was a by-product of a 1000 year process of tribal amalgamation of Europe, during which kings conquered neighboring tribes and fused their loyalties into those of broader multi-ethnic nationalisms. During this 1000 year process, tribal loyalties were repressed by force, and tolerance drummed into the heads of our European populations by the sticks and carrots of force and patronage.

The Ole Ygg would argue that the process of tribal amalgamation was only possible in Europe because of a 5000 year old evolutionary psychology forged by the certainty of starvation in northern winters for those who carelessly offended neighboring villagers upon whom they might have to depend for survival if crops failed or fish migrated from habitual fishing banks.

In such a harsh environment, habits of civility would confer an enormous survival advantage. Indeed an invader could find lots of uninhabited spaces to settle in the northern wastes, but unless that invader was already familiar with the local fishing and farming techniques, it would perish by spring. Suspicion and hostility toward strangers were not necessary to secure genetic separation nor safety from invasion from afar."

...
Petr

I'm tempted to answer this nonsensical post even though I've known you long enough to know that you really don't believe the balderdash below. At any rate, I have to go to work know, but I'll get back to this later for the benefit of the gallery. :)

:: Most Americans are basically rootless, alienated, judaised racial bastards.

No country on Earth is more disgusting, corrupt, and decadent than the Federal Republic of Germany.

:: This was already noted by Hitler and Goebbels who viewed Americans as racial mongrels under jewish domination.

That's funny. Goebbels does not strike me as your typical Nordic superman. I recall someone suggesting he had Indonesian blood in him. Is that true?

:: As to the Semitized English. . .

Hilarious. Which nation just provided Israel with nuclear submarines?

:: they're well on their way to commit racial/cultural suicide by miscegenating themselves out of existence at at a frightening rate.

I have seen similar numbers coming out of Germany. There is also far more resistance to thirdworldization in Britain, France, and Holland than in Germany.

:: Forgive me for not shedding any tears...

So how is life in New Turkey these days?

:: Most Americans are basically rootless, alienated, judaised racial bastards.

No country on Earth is more disgusting, corrupt, and decadent than the Federal Republic of Germany.

I couldn't agree with you more Fade. But please don't confuse the "Federal Republik" with Germany. The "BRD" is a spawn of the love-relationship of yankee-judea and judeo bolshevism. What Germany has become today it can totaly thank the Anglo-Americans.

:: This was already noted by Hitler and Goebbels who viewed Americans as racial mongrels under jewish domination.

That's funny. Goebbels does not strike me as your typical Nordic superman. I recall someone suggesting he had Indonesian blood in him. Is that true?

Straw Man! What has Goebbels looks to do with yankee-bastardization? Tell me how many N1ggers, Turks, Asians lived in Germany before and after 1945 and compare that to USA? Did we occupy your country and force the civil rights movement and the "diversety" down your throat with the bayonett?

I recall someone suggesting that you are Jewish Fade. Is that true? :D

:: As to the Semitized English. . .

Hilarious. Which nation just provided Israel with nuclear submarines?

Which Nation just invaded Iraq on behalf of the Jews? Tell me who installed the puppetregime of Bonn in Germany? Who occupies Germany? Whos got a "Army of the Rhine" stationed here? did you know that the secret police "Verfassungsschutz" was an invention of the Britisch and the first President Otto John, installed by britisch Intelligence? Who murdered our rightfull Goverment Fade?

:: they're well on their way to commit racial/cultural suicide by miscegenating themselves out of existence at at a frightening rate.

I have seen similar numbers coming out of Germany. There is also far more resistance to thirdworldization in Britain, France, and Holland than in Germany.

Again: Who installed this Regime here?

:: Forgive me for not shedding any tears...

So how is life in New Turkey these days?

Who is backing Turkey to get into the EU? Um..yes......... USA! Tell me Fade, when did you become a Yankee? I think I missed your newest transformation! :rolleyes:

No country on Earth is more disgusting, corrupt, and decadent than the Federal Republic of Germany.

How is Germany now worse then Sweden and Belgium? Their economies are more socialized, there is less opposition to 3rd worldization, they don't have to cope with the demons of the 3rd Reich and post cold war reunification etc.

:: I couldn't agree with you more Fade. But please don't confuse the "Federal Republik" with Germany.

Why? The German people elect their leaders. Such leaders are not appointed by either Americans or Russians. These leaders often taken anti-American positions, like Schroeder. Perhaps you simply do not like the Germany that Germans have themselves created, the Germany that Germans maintain.

:: The "BRD" is a spawn of the love-relationship of yankee-judea and judeo bolshevism.

Bolshevism is dead. The United States does not control Germany. There is not even a Social Democratic Party in the United States.

:: What Germany has become today it can totaly thank the Anglo-Americans.

That is absolute nonsense. I have never agreed with you on this issue either. German pacifism is hardly a creation of Americans. It is entirely indigenous, the leftovers of a degenerate form of evangelical Protestantism and the revulsion of the German people against the nationalists who left Germany in flames. The U.S. actually wanted a strong and militarized Germany within NATO as an ally in the Cold War, much to the chagrin of the Socialists like Willy Brandt who wanted to appease the USSR..

:: Straw Man! What has Goebbels looks to do with yankee-bastardization?

What 'bastardization' would this be? One is not biologically a German, a Russian, or a Frenchman. Ethnic identities are highly constructed. White Americans are not anymore 'bastardized' than Germans, citizens of a country that is composed of many subraces.

:: Tell me how many N1ggers, Turks, Asians lived in Germany before and after 1945 and compare that to USA?

During the German Empire, it was actually legal for Germans to marry Negroes, although this was not the case in many U.S. states. The migrant workers that now live in Germany were brought in, just as they were in other Western nations, by the indigenous oligarchy which needed cheap labour in the reconstruction effort after the war. This is still pretty much the case today.

:: Did we occupy your country and force the civil rights movement and the "diversety" down your throat with the bayonett?

But 'diversity' and 'civil rights' were never thrust down the throat of Germans. We did not even have enforced civil rights legislation in the U.S. until the 1960s. The bull**** in the German Basic Law about 'human dignity' (which is not found in the U.S. Constitution) comes from the philosophy of Kant, although I doubt you are familiar with any of this writings. And don't complain about the occupation of Germany by Americans and Russians. Adolf Hitler, after all, did declare war on the US and USSR. That was a chance HE was willing to take, so have the common decency to take responsibility for the actions of YOUR OWN country.

:: I recall someone suggesting that you are Jewish Fade. Is that true?

One is not Jewish simply because we does not foam at the mouth at the thought of the British or Americans being miscegenated out of existence or the Slavs being exterminated.

:: Which Nation just invaded Iraq on behalf of the Jews?

I am not here to apologise for the actions of the American Government which I have no sympathy for. I never agreed with the Iraq War, which was a Jewish War, and you know that. My problem here is that there are some people on this forum who wish to blame others for problems that are actually of their own creation.

:: Tell me who installed the puppetregime of Bonn in Germany?

1.) West Germany was not a puppet of the United States. In fact, it was a pain in the ass throughout the Cold War for the Americans and obstructed their efforts to contain communism on numerous occasions.

2.) Its not the fault of Americans that Adolf Hitler declared war on the US and risked the destruction of his country in the process.

:: Who occupies Germany?

No one. Its true there are American troops in Germany, but they are there because Germans WANT THEM THERE. The US recently wanted to pull even more troops out of Germany than it actually did, but the Germans objected and took it as a personal insult.

:: Whos got a "Army of the Rhine" stationed here?

Why is that army there? Because Germans want it there, as hard as that is for you to swallow.

:: did you know that the secret police "Verfassungsschutz" was an invention of the Britisch and the first President Otto John, installed by britisch Intelligence?

No, actually I did not. But it is ludicrous to suggest that the agency you now refer to is STILL subordinate to either the British or Americans. But you are missing the entire point: it was Adolf Hitler who declared war on the US and USSR and risked the destruction of his country and the annihilation of its citizens. The German people understand that. You do not.

:: Who murdered our rightfull Goverment Fade?

No one 'murdered' the 'rightful government' of Germany, Wehrmacht. The 'rightful government' of Germany declared war on other nations and lost. Its that simple.

:: Again: Who installed this Regime here?

Who declared war on other nations?

:: Who is backing Turkey to get into the EU?

France and Germany, amongst others.

:: Um..yes......... USA!

The USA does not tell the EU what to do, as was obvious when France and Germany refused to join in the Iraq War.

:: Tell me Fade, when did you become a Yankee?

When did you become a Federal citizen? :p

:: I think I missed your newest transformation!

There has not been any transformation. I have always:

1.) Disagreed with your notion that Germany is a puppet of the USA.
2.) Disagreed with your notion that Germany has been corrupted by Americans.
3.) Believed that the current decadence in Germany came about in the 1960s, as was the case throughout the West.
4.) Never desired to see the British or American miscegenated out of existence.
5.) Been opposed to fighting WW2 over again.
6.) Been pro-European in my sentiments.

I know I am wasting my time here, but whatever: Here it goes:..

:: I couldn't agree with you more Fade. But please don't confuse the "Federal Republik" with Germany.

Why? The German people elect their leaders. Such leaders are not appointed by either Americans or Russians. These leaders often taken anti-American positions, like Schroeder. Perhaps you simply do not like the Germany that Germans have themselves created, the Germany that Germans maintain.

"Nato is here to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down!"
Tell me, who ellected Konrad Adenauer in 1949? Who created the Parties? Who gave these Parties a "licens"? Who banned, confiscated and smashed the entire german media in 1945 and passed out licens for printing? Who banned all schoolbooks and cleanesed our library from "nationalist" views? Thats right Fadeberg - the US-Military?
And who wrote in his memoirs: "I then went on to sign off the new german constitution and give my aproval" ? Yes, General Lucius Clay, Dictator of the West-Zone.
Schröder "anti-American" LOL? You sound like a freeper!


:: The "BRD" is a spawn of the love-relationship of yankee-judea and judeo bolshevism.

Bolshevism is dead. The United States does not control Germany. There is not even a Social Democratic Party in the United States.

Well, I know this is for you self centered anglo-saxon-yankees a bit hard to realize, but there is a world outside your borders. As for Bolshevism being dead, thats the bigest joke I have heard since long. In SA the ANC is in power. In russia the old Soviet Union is creeping back in new disguise. In Germany the Bolsheviks are winning ellections. The Greens are in the Federal Goverment. also you dont need a red star on your cap and a red armband to be a bolshevik.


:: What Germany has become today it can totaly thank the Anglo-Americans.

That is absolute nonsense. I have never agreed with you on this issue either. German pacifism is hardly a creation of Americans. It is entirely indigenous, the leftovers of a degenerate form of evangelical Protestantism and the revulsion of the German people against the nationalists who left Germany in flames. The U.S. actually wanted a strong and militarized Germany within NATO as an ally in the Cold War, much to the chagrin of the Socialists like Willy Brandt who wanted to appease the USSR..

LOL - The "Nationalists" left Germany in flames! Ohh those eeeevil Nationalists! And I always thought it was Soviet Artillery and US/Anglo Bombers that turned our country into a pile of rubble.

Thanks for proving that you are so ignorant on the matter, but pre 1945 Protestants were truly Lutherans and antijewish. Face it: American Tanks brought this demockracy into our country. It was a jewish crusade. The neocons even boast about it today in comparison to Iraq "It was possible in Germany. We did the Job then..."


:: Straw Man! What has Goebbels looks to do with yankee-bastardization?

What 'bastardization' would this be? One is not biologically a German, a Russian, or a Frenchman. Ethnic identities are highly constructed. White Americans are not anymore 'bastardized' than Germans, citizens of a country that is composed of many subraces.

Dont you ever speak of Dr. Goebbels like that again! I just gave you some of your own medicin...buster! :mad:


:: Tell me how many N1ggers, Turks, Asians lived in Germany before and after 1945 and compare that to USA?

During the German Empire, it was actually legal for Germans to marry Negroes, although this was not the case in many U.S. states. The migrant workers that now live in Germany were brought in, just as they were in other Western nations, by the indigenous oligarchy which needed cheap labour in the reconstruction effort after the war. This is still pretty much the case today.

Oh realy. Please show those laws. N1ggers werent allowed to move from the colonies to Germany. Any offspring of degenerate Germans with N!ggers was also not allowed to enter the country. Citizenship was based on blood.
The "cheap labour" came after the reconstruction was allready completed. Don't sell me this jewish BS that the foreigners rebuild our country! Maybe you should read about the Hooton-Plan and then you might see how the concept of "cheap labour" fits totaly into their agenda of extermination.


:: Did we occupy your country and force the civil rights movement and the "diversety" down your throat with the bayonett?

But 'diversity' and 'civil rights' were never thrust down the throat of Germans. We did not even have enforced civil rights legislation in the U.S. until the 1960s. The bull**** in the German Basic Law about 'human dignity' (which is not found in the U.S. Constitution) comes from the philosophy of Kant, although I doubt you are familiar with any of this writings.

No, I didn't read Kant and I dont intend to. It's boring. I fail to see what Kant has to do with the fact that the american military occupied us and bannished all anti-jewish laws, outlawed "racial discrimination". Is that also Kants fault?


And don't complain about the occupation of Germany by Americans and Russians. Adolf Hitler, after all, did declare war on the US and USSR. That was a chance HE was willing to take, so have the common decency to take responsibility for the actions of YOUR OWN country.

No, why should I complaint that we were defending ourselves. Or is Fade goint to swith sides and run over with waving red banners defending the soviet Liberators? No wonder that you unbanned that subhuman bolshevik whos name I dont even wish to mention.





:: I recall someone suggesting that you are Jewish Fade. Is that true?

One is not Jewish simply because we does not foam at the mouth at the thought of the British or Americans being miscegenated out of existence or the Slavs being exterminated.

Whos foaming? thats not foam, thats creme from my coffee.


:: Which Nation just invaded Iraq on behalf of the Jews?

I am not here to apologise for the actions of the American Government which I have no sympathy for. I never agreed with the Iraq War, which was a Jewish War, and you know that. My problem here is that there are some people on this forum who wish to blame others for problems that are actually of their own creation.

ahhhwww - You don't like me blaming FDR and his cabal for what they did to Europe. "Onwards X-tian soldiers marching ASS to war...". Yes, it was all Hitlers fault.

[/QUOTE]
:: Tell me who installed the puppetregime of Bonn in Germany?

1.) West Germany was not a puppet of the United States. In fact, it was a pain in the ass throughout the Cold War for the Americans and obstructed their efforts to contain communism on numerous occasions.[/QUOTE]

Oh realy? :rolleyes: Americans wanted to "contain communism" ROFL!
Ever heard of Yalta and Potsdam? "I like Uncle Joe and I think he likes me to..." Hahahaha!


2.) Its not the fault of Americans that Adolf Hitler declared war on the US and risked the destruction of his country in the process.

Hitler teh eeeeeeeeeeeeevil! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil! I say EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil! Repeat after me, with jiddish accent: EEEEEEEJJJJJJJJJJJJJVIL!


:: Who occupies Germany?

No one. Its true there are American troops in Germany, but they are there because Germans WANT THEM THERE. The US recently wanted to pull even more troops out of Germany than it actually did, but the Germans objected and took it as a personal insult.

Tell me, how did these troops get here? Through a personal invitation of Hindenburg or Hitler? "We are not here as liberators, we are here as victors" Ike the Kike.


:: Whos got a "Army of the Rhine" stationed here?

Why is that army there? Because Germans want it there, as hard as that is for you to swallow.

Yeah, see above! :rolleyes: Nincompoop!


:: did you know that the secret police "Verfassungsschutz" was an invention of the Britisch and the first President Otto John, installed by britisch Intelligence?

No, actually I did not. But it is ludicrous to suggest that the agency you now refer to is STILL subordinate to either the British or Americans. But you are missing the entire point: it was Adolf Hitler who declared war on the US and USSR and risked the destruction of his country and the annihilation of its citizens. The German people understand that. You do not.


Lesson two. Repeat after me: Hitler EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL! Empire of EEEEEEEEEEEVIL! Axis of EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL! Say it borthers! EEEEEEEEEVIL! Haleluja!


:: Who murdered our rightfull Goverment Fade?

No one 'murdered' the 'rightful government' of Germany, Wehrmacht. The 'rightful government' of Germany declared war on other nations and lost. Its that simple.

Could someone check Fades IP? I think Sulla has hacked his account and is posting uder his name!


:: Again: Who installed this Regime here?

Who declared war on other nations?

I'm sure you will tell me Sulla! :D


:: Who is backing Turkey to get into the EU?

France and Germany, amongst others.

:: Um..yes......... USA!

But surely not Petains and Hitlers Germany, right?




There has not been any transformation. I have always been Sulla uhm....:

1.) Disagreed with your notion that Germany is a puppet of the USA.
2.) Disagreed with your notion that Germany has been corrupted by Americans.
3.) Believed that the current decadence in Germany came about in the 1960s, as was the case throughout the West.
4.) Never desired to see the British or American miscegenated out of existence.
5.) Been opposed to fighting WW2 over again.
6.) Been pro-European in my sentiments.


You dont need to fight WW2 all over again. After all, you have reached your objective: Destroying teh EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL! Restoring human decency and cuddly love upon all mankind" Sing: Praise teh Lord cumbayah.... ohohohoh ohhhhhhhhh yea moma - sing it baby - we are the worrrrrrrrrrrrrrl we are the children......weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee shall fight teh eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil on teh beaches, in teh mountains....... form sea toooooooooooo shining seaaaaaaa! Yeah!

Congratulations! you have won two tickest for a Eminem concert and free trip to the holocaust memorial in DC!

Why? The German people elect their leaders. Such leaders are not appointed by either Americans or Russians. These leaders often taken anti-American positions, like Schroeder. Perhaps you simply do not like the Germany that Germans have themselves created, the Germany that Germans maintain.

I will Germar Rudolf speak (stay with me, Fade):

Gerard Radnitzky has given an excellent account[20] of the origin, mechanisms and effects of German anti-Fascist opinion terrorism, a phenomenon which is also generally downplayed as 'political correctness' (PC). While PC has shown social effects in the United States, it has remained largely without pronounced consequences in the political and especially the legal arena there, and has also prompted considerable counter-currents.[21] Primarily in German-speaking countries, on the other hand, it has increasingly become the yardstick by which all political and legal decisions are measured. The origins of this development are complex. For one thing, by means of the provisions for compulsory licensing[22] the so-called re-education program of the post-WWII American government in Germany ensured that socially influential positions, particularly those in the major print and broadcast media, in historiography, and in sociology, were held by decidedly anti-Fascist, i.e., pronouncedly leftist persons, and that anti-Fascist and anti-national attitudes were deliberately fostered there. There was no free press and no academic freedom at the universities until 1955, when Germany was granted partial sovereignty. Conservative or right-wing publications could not counterbalance the economic advantages held in 1955 by the media that had been established in 1945 or shortly thereafter. The same goes for certain academic circles in German colleges and universities, where ideologically defined elements constantly perpetuate themselves. And to make sure that the situation could not change in political respects either, the so-called Office for the Protection of the Constitution was established in Germany; besides combating openly Communist political parties, this Office does all it can to shunt all conservative, national or right-wing parties and their members into a juridical void. Consequently, Germany has no major conservative or right-wing media, next to no such university or college professors, and no such political parties of any significance.
The second break which Radnitzky identifies in German post-war history is the so-called 'Student Revolt' of 1968, in the course of which German students, incited by the leftist or even Communist teachings of their professors whom the Allied occupation armies had installed in the German universities two decades earlier,[23] provoked severe riots with their pro-Communist slogans.[24] A small part of this movement descended into left-wing terrorism that kept Germany on tenterhooks in the 1970s, while the majority of these leftists began its march into the country's various institutions.[25] Today, in the late 20th century, this generation with its Socialist to Communist ideas is at the height of power. Its members are strongly represented in all facets of German society[26] and are very adept indeed at bringing public opinion under their control by means of the so-called 'Fascist Two-by-Four'[27], i.e., the way in which any and all opposition is silenced by the automatic fear of being accused of Fascist leanings. Radnitzky exposes the methods with which this manipulative, mendacious and falsifying elite uses media campaigns to bring about the downfall of persons holding dissenting opinions, and how this elite does not even balk at using or at least tolerating violence, for example in the form of assassination and arson of (insignificant) right-wing politicians or publications. The voices warning that the intellectual climate in Germany is becoming more and more poisoned by this opinion terrorism and that Germany's democracy is in grave danger are now growing louder,[28] but of course the German media, those "enemies of free society",[29] keep these voices from the public, and the rest of the world also studiously ignores them.http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndintro.html
Bolshevism is dead. The United States does not control Germany. There is not even a Social Democratic Party in the United States.

The United States is directly and overwhelmingly responsible for the current state of affairs in the Anti-German Bastardstate. It was the US who was instrumental in deciding two world wars in the Allies’ favour during the Twentieth Century.

German pacifism is hardly a creation of Americans.

Should we blame...the Smurfs?

It is entirely indigenous, the leftovers of a degenerate form of evangelical Protestantism

Actually, it was the German Protestant upper-class that constituted the bulk of the National Socialist vote. See Who voted for Hitler? By: Richard F Hamilton Publisher: Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1982.

and the revulsion of the German people against thenationalists who left Germany in flames.

No, the people who left “Germany in flames” were mostly British and American military and political commanders behind the non-stop saturation bombing and other atrocities perpetrated on civilians by the Allies.

The U.S. actually wanted a strong and militarized Germany within NATO as an ally in the Cold War, much to the chagrin of the Socialists like Willy Brandt who wanted to appease the USSR.

The Germans didn’t want to be caught in the middle of a nuclear exchange in Europe, you say? The nerve of some people!!! Tell us why the Soviets took half of Europe, Fade.

What 'bastardization' would this be? One is not biologically a German, a Russian, or a Frenchman. Ethnic identities are highly constructed.

How about “nationalities,” do you believe in nationalities, Fade?

White Americans are not anymore 'bastardized' than Germans, citizens of a country that is composed of many subraces.

A typical “American” is a bastardized goulash of various European (and oftentimes non-European) nationalities, yes or no?

During the German Empire, it was actually legal for Germans to marry Negroes, although this was not the case in many U.S. states.

There were no Negroes "[d]uring the German Empire” inside its political borders.

As an aside, I’ve read five biographies of Dr. Goebbels and not one suggested in any way non-European ancestory; however, if you possess a credible source for your allegation, let’s have it.

(BTW, I notice that you haven’t answered Wehrmacht’s question. :) )

The migrant workers that now live in Germany were brought in, just as they were in other Western nations, by the indigenous oligarchy which needed cheap labour in the reconstruction effort after the war. This is still pretty much the case today.

Those migrants were brought in by the traitorous political establishment installed by the US. Do I have to remind you, Fade, that the most thorough and in-depth de-Nazification occurred in the American sector?

But 'diversity' and 'civil rights' were never thrust down the throat of Germans.

Oh yes they were!!! See above.

We did not even have enforced civil rights legislation in the U.S. until the 1960s. The bull**** in the German Basic Law about 'human dignity' (which is not found in the U.S. Constitution) comes from the philosophy of Kant, although I doubt you are familiar with any of this writings.

Setting aside the condescending cheap shot aimed at Wehrmacht, the Basic Law was/is an American creature drafted in its entirety by Americans.

And don't complain about the occupation of Germany by Americans and Russians. Adolf Hitler, after all, did declare war on the US and USSR. That was a chance HE was willing to take, so have the common decency to take responsibility for the actions of YOUR OWN country.

Yes, and the evil, sneaky, slit-eyed JAPS sucker-punched the poooor and always innocent, thumb-sucking Americans FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.

I refer you to Mr. Reynolds’ article.

One is not Jewish simply because we does not foam at the mouth at the thought of the British or Americans being miscegenated out of existence

The present racial mess in Europe and America can be squarely put on the shoulders of the British and Americans and their jewish overlords and paymasters.

or the Slavs being exterminated.

Come again? Neither Wehrmacht nor I is anti-Slav and you know it. Additionally, Wehrmacht is very pro-Russian. Stop the red herrings. :rolleyes:

1)West Germany was not a puppet of the United States. In fact, it was a pain in the ass throughout the Cold War for the Americans and obstructed their efforts to contain communism on numerous occasions.

See above.

2.) Its not the fault of Americans that Adolf Hitler declared war on the US and risked the destruction of his country in the process.]/QUOTE]

Awe shucks! Once again those pooooor Americans!!!

[QUOTE]No one. Its true there are American troops in Germany, but they are there because Germans WANT THEM THERE.

No, you’re confusing Germans with their corrupt political class. Believe it or not all studies and surveys confirm that ordinary Germans don’t wish to be occupied and have foreign armies on their territory. But German politicians couldn’t care less what Germans want or wish. For e.g., only recently Angela Merkel (head of the “conservative” opposition) said that her government would’ve participated in the war with Iraq; the fact that 95% of Germans were against German participation didn’t seem to trouble her in the least.

Why is that army there? Because Germans want it there, as hard as that is for you to swallow.

Stupid BS. See above.

No, actually I did not. But it is ludicrous to suggest that the agency you now refer to is STILL subordinate to either the British or Americans. But you are missing the entire point: it was Adolf Hitler who declared war on the US and USSR and risked the destruction of his country and the annihilation of its citizens. The German people understand that. You do not.

Tell us, Fade, what "the German people understand..." :rolleyes:

I love hearing lectures about Germany from someone who lives in rural Alabama and who has never even set foot on the European continent.

No one 'murdered' the 'rightful government' of Germany, Wehrmacht. The 'rightful government' of Germany declared war on other nations and lost. Its that simple.

See above.

France and Germany, amongst others.

In summary:

1.) Disagreed with your notion that Germany is a puppet of the USA.

False, Germany is a puppet of the US.


2.) Disagreed with your notion that Germany has been corrupted by Americans.

False, Germany has been and continues to be corrupted by America.


3.) Believed that the current decadence in Germany came about in the 1960s, as was the case throughout the West.

False, had Germany remained National Socialist after WW II and in the 1960s there would be no “current decadence in Germany.”

Never desired to see the British or American miscegenated out of existence.

Stop it, you gonna make me cry!!!

5.) Been opposed to fighting WW2 over again.

Sure, why talk about history at all?

6.) Been pro-European in my sentiments

I’m pro-European as well; and had Germany won WW II Europe today would look a lot more to our liking, do you agree? Do you?

:: "Nato is here to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down!"

No one is forcing Germany to remain part of NATO. It can leave at any time it so chooses. The German government often opposes American interests within NATO. So tell answer me this: why would a 'puppet' government of the United States obstruct America's foreign policy ambitions?

:: Who created the Parties?

The Christian Democrats and Social Democrats existed prior to World War 2. That they continue to exist today, with the popular support of the German people, is not the fault of Americans, but a failure of indigenous German nationalists.

:: Tell me, who ellected Konrad Adenauer in 1949?

Here is better question: who re-elected Adenauer in 1953, 1957 and 1961?

:: Who gave these Parties a "licens"? Who banned, confiscated and smashed the entire german media in 1945 and passed out licens for printing?

Its not the fault of Americans or Russians that Adolf Hitler declared war on the US and USSR and lost to both of them. No free press ever existed in the areas that fell under German control.

:: Schröder "anti-American" LOL? You sound like a freeper!

Sure. He went out of his way to oppose the Iraq War and earned American ire for it.

:: Who banned all schoolbooks and cleanesed our library from "nationalist" views? Thats right Fadeberg - the US-Military?

Cry me a river. The Germans most certainly did not have any problems with any of that in either Poland or Czechia or Luxemburg. That is what happens when you LOSE wars.

:: And who wrote in his memoirs: "I then went on to sign off the new german constitution and give my aproval" ? Yes, General Lucius Clay, Dictator of the West-Zone.

Please spare us your hypocritical righteous indignation. The National Socialists had absolutely no problem imprisoning and exterminating members of hostile political parties in the nations they occupied.

:: Well, I know this is for you self centered anglo-saxon-yankees a bit hard to realize, but there is a world outside your borders.

Are you sure you are not talking to yourself? You seem to be mistaking me here for one of those fanatical national chauvinists who hates the **** out of everyone that isn't German.

:: As for Bolshevism being dead, thats the bigest joke I have heard since long.

Bolshevism is very dead, actually.

:: In SA the ANC is in power.

South Africa is a democracy and it does not have a Stalinist economy either.

:: In russia the old Soviet Union is creeping back in new disguise.

Nonsense. The Russian Federation is an authoritarian capitalist democracy.

:: In Germany the Bolsheviks are winning ellections.

Bolshevism is not in power in Germany either.

:: The Greens are in the Federal Goverment. also you dont need a red star on your cap and a red armband to be a bolshevik.

LMAO the Greens are not Bolsheviks. What the hell are you talking about?

:: LOL - The "Nationalists" left Germany in flames!

Absolutely. The German Nationalists wrecked their country in pursuit of a romantic fantasy of taking land at the expense of the Slavs. The average German did not give a damn about German villages in the Crimea.

:: Ohh those eeeevil Nationalists!

I have Hitler's Table Talk right here. Want me to post excerpts? I have found a few good ones.

:: And I always thought it was Soviet Artillery and US/Anglo Bombers that turned our country into a pile of rubble.

Hmm. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that Adolf Hitler declared war on the USA and USSR. :|

:: Thanks for proving that you are so ignorant on the matter, but pre 1945 Protestants were truly Lutherans and antijewish.

Lets see your evidence.

:: Face it: American Tanks brought this demockracy into our country.

Face it: American tanks rolled over Germany because Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States.

:: It was a jewish crusade.

You are delusional. The U.S. was isolationist and did not enter World War 2 until it was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The U.S. did not even ratify the Versailles Treaty. It did not even join the League of Nations. Italy and Germany also declared war on the U.S.

:: The neocons even boast about it today in comparison to Iraq "It was possible in Germany. We did the Job then..."

A democracy was successfully implanted in Germany. It has only taken root because, unlike the Iraqis, the Germans actually were disgusted with the National Socialists for wrecking their nation (which is why resistance virtually evaporated).

:: Dont you ever speak of Dr. Goebbels like that again! I just gave you some of your own medicin...buster!

How about Himmler? :p

:: Oh realy. Please show those laws. N1ggers werent allowed to move from the colonies to Germany. Any offspring of degenerate Germans with N!ggers was also not allowed to enter the country. Citizenship was based on blood.

Sure. Edwin Black discusses it in his new book on the history of eugenics. I will get the specific page number later with his footnote.

:: The "cheap labour" came after the reconstruction was allready completed.

It is 40 years since the deal was signed allowing the first Turkish workers to come to Germany.

It was a deal which transformed the society forever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1627912.stm

:: Don't sell me this jewish BS that the foreigners rebuild our country! Maybe you should read about the Hooton-Plan and then you might see how the concept of "cheap labour" fits totaly into their agenda of extermination.

Please tell me how the U.S. forced Turkish workers on the Federal Republic in the 1960s.

:: Oh realy? Americans wanted to "contain communism" ROFL!
Ever heard of Yalta and Potsdam? "I like Uncle Joe and I think he likes me to..." Hahahaha!

The containment policy was formulated after WW2 during the Truman Administration. What is your problem with Bolshevism anyway? :rolleyes:

:: Hitler teh eeeeeeeeeeeeevil! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil! I say EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil! Repeat after me, with jiddish accent: EEEEEEEJJJJJJJJJJJJJVIL!

Don't put words in my mouth.

:: Tell me, how did these troops get here?

Hitler declared war on the United States. He invaded the Soviet Union as well. And he lost. Got it?

:: Through a personal invitation of Hindenburg or Hitler?

Yes. His declaration of war.

:: "We are not here as liberators, we are here as victors" Ike the Kike.

If the Germans so dislike the American troops located in Europe, then why doesn't the German government simply ask them to leave?

:: Yeah, see above! Nincompoop!

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_germany_081704,00.html


Germans Wary Of U.S. Troop Withdrawal
Associated Press
August 17, 2004

BERLIN - German officials voiced concern Monday that their country has the most to lose with President Bush's announcement that tens of thousands of troops will return to the United States over the next decade.

With some 70,000 U.S. soldiers based in Germany, thousands of local jobs - from bakers to maintenance workers and office personnel - depend on the Americans, who first came as occupying forces after World War II.

European and Asian countries with U.S. troops have braced for the changes for several years, but Bush's announcement Monday that up to 70,000 uniformed personnel and 100,000 dependents will gradually be moved back to the United States brought home the full impact.

"Base closures would hit us very hard," said city spokesman Ole Kruse in the Bavarian city of Wuerzburg, home of the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division.

That unit and the 1st Armored Division, based in Wiesbaden near Frankfurt, will return to the United States as part of the global restructuring, Pentagon officials said Monday.

They will be replaced by a brigade, a much smaller unit equipped with Stryker light armored vehicles, though they probably won't start leaving until 2006 at the earliest, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

U.S. troops were based in large numbers in Germany during the Cold War to deter a then-feared Soviet invasion, and most of the 100,000 U.S. troops based in Europe are still in Germany.

The United States will close nearly half of its hundreds of installations in Europe as part of the massive restructuring plan, defense officials said. It also has plans to reduce troop numbers in South Korea, where they have held static positions for 50 years.

"The world has changed a great deal and our posture must change with it," Bush told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Cincinnati. The United States needs "a more agile and more flexible force" to help fight "wars of the 21st century," he said.

But for places like Baumholder, a town in rural western Germany with a U.S. military training area, that spells problems.

Some 11,500 residents are matched by a U.S. military community of the same size, and the local economy would lose $150 million a year if the Americans left, Mayor Volkmar Pees told The Associated Press.

"The Americans are part of us," Baumholder resident Iris Schoen said. "You build up great friendships."

In host countries such as Germany and Japan, local governments have paid much of the cost of stationing U.S. troops.

German officials have traveled to Washington in recent months to lobby against troop withdrawals and propose alternatives.

For instance, Rhineland-Palatinate state officials say they have suggested that lighter units replace the heavy armor now stationed at Baumholder. Mayor Pees called on the German military to move into facilities vacated by the Americans.

In Bamberg, officials said the local utility company could lose a major customer and that real estate prices would decline if the U.S. military leaves.

"We view this with great concern," city spokesman Steffen Schuetzewohl said.

In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters based at Spangdahlem near the Belgian border could be moved to the Incirlik base in Turkey, closer to the Middle East.

"The Americans' announced troop withdrawal is understandable," said Alexander Bonde, a lawmaker from Germany's Greens party, which is part of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government.

"Since most of the European-based American troops are in Germany, it's clear that the bulk of the withdrawal has to happen in Germany," he said.

Officials have indicated Ramstein Air Base and the Landstuhl military hospital in southwestern Germany, as well as the Grafenwoehr training grounds in Bavaria, are not on the table.

For U.S. military personnel and their families, the immediate impact will likely be limited. Many soldiers are expected to return home when their tour of duty would have been up anyway.


:: Could someone check Fades IP? I think Sulla has hacked his account and is posting uder his name!

Hitler declared war on the US and USSR. He knew full and well the risk he was taking. He lost. Do you deny that?

:: But surely not Petains and Hitlers Germany, right?

Petain is a German? :confused:

:: You dont need to fight WW2 all over again.

I live in the 21st century. Perhaps you will join it one day. :D

:: Congratulations! you have won two tickest for a Eminem concert and free trip to the holocaust memorial in DC!

As I said before, I am not interested in seeing the Americans and British miscegenated out of existence or the Slavs exterminated.

Since you are so fond of playing with straw men, I have a lil present for you:

http://www.illlogic.net/images/japan2002/a-big-big-straw-man-6-18.jpg

Enjoy!

:: I will Germar Rudolf speak (stay with me, Fade)

Don't waste my time with crap from internet websites. Cite scholarly sources in referred journals.

:: How about “nationalities,” do you believe in nationalities, Fade?

I don't have any problem with nationalities. But I am most certainly not one of the hate the **** out of everyone who isn't German Nazis.

:: Should we blame the...Smurfs?

Perhaps you should blame Adolf Hitler for LOSING the war.

:: The United States is directly and overwhelmingly responsible for the current state of affairs in the Anti-German Bastardstate.

That is ****ing nonsense. The U.S. Government does not formulate German public policy or appoint Germany's leaders. Don't blame others for YOUR OWN unpopularity.

:: It was the US who was instrumental in deciding two world wars in the Allies’ favour during the Twentieth Century.

1.) The U.S. did not start the Great War and only entered it after being dragged into it by the Kaiser.
2.) The U.S. did not start World War 2 either. The U.S. entered World War 2 when it was attacked at Pearl Harbor. It also responded to Germany's declaration of war.

:: Actually, it was the German Protestant upper-class that constituted the bulk of the National Socialist vote.

The atrocity propaganda would never have been effective in Germany had it not been for centuries of Protestant moralizing about 'sin'. That was my point.

:: No, the people who left “Germany in flames” were mostly British and American military and political commanders behind the non-stop saturation bombing and other atrocities perpetrated on civilians by the Allies.

As if Germany had any problem whatsoever slaughtering civilians or bombing civilian population centers. Germany also declared war on the United States as well. So blame Adolf Hitler for American bombers flying over Germany.

:: The Germans didn’t want to be caught in the middle of a nuclear exchange in Europe, you say?

The Germans wanted to coddle and suck up to the Soviet Union FOR THEIR OWN REASONS (e.g., to isolate East Germany diplomatically), which is precisely why they renounced their claim on the Eastern territories lost to Poland.

:: The nerve of some people!!! Tell us why the Soviets took half of Europe, Fade.

Because Adolf Hitler declared war on the Soviet Union and lost?

:: A typical “American” is a bastardized goulash of various European (and oftentimes non-European) nationalities, yes or no?

Nationality is not BIOLOGICALLY transmitted.

:: There were no Negroes [d]"uring the German Empire” inside its political borders.[/b]

Germans could legally marry Negroes under German law during the German Empire. I will provide a citation later. In fact, I will pursue the footnotes for I can discuss the matter in detail if you wish.

:: As an aside, I’ve read five biographies of Dr. Goebbels and not one suggested in any way non-European ancestory; however, if you possess a credible source for your allegation, let’s have it.

I will make a special trip to the library, as always.

:: Oh yes they were!!! See above.

Don't give me garbage off the internet. Cite scholarly sources in referred journals.

:: Those migrants were brought in by the traitorous political establishment installed by the US.

The U.S. did not install Germany's leaders in the 1960s.

:: Do I have to remind you, Fade, that the most thorough and in-depth de-Nazification occurred in the American sector?

De-Nazification was actually a failure. It was the loser generation of the 1960s that brought about the cultural change, as was also the case in France.

:: Setting aside the condescending cheap shot aimed at Wehrmacht, the Basic Law was/is an American creature drafted in its entirety by Americans.

Show me your evidence.

:: Yes, and the evil, sneaky, slint-eyed JAPS sucker-punched the poooor and always innocent, thumb-sucking Americans FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. I refer you to Mr. Reynolds’ article.

Its not incumbent upon the U.S. to trade with the Japanese.

:: The present racial mess in Europe and America can be squarely put on the shoulders of the British and Americans and their jewish overlords and paymasters.

Tell me the names of the Jews that CONTROL America and the UK. Better yet, explain to me how the U.S. Government forces the Federal Republic of Germany to import nonwhite workers into Germany today (or any nation in Europe, for that matter). How about Sweden? Or Switzerland? Or Spain? Or Portugal? Did the U.S. and U.K. force those nations to import nonwhites as well?

:: Come again? Neither Wehrmacht nor I is anti-Slav and you know it. Additionally, Wehrmacht is very pro-Russian. Stop the red herrings.

Hitler and the National Socialists were as anti-Slavic as they come. He never made any secret of this either. In fact, I have the Table Talks right here. I will quote them extensively for your benefit shortly.

:: See above.

Please demonstrate for me how Willy Brandt or Gerhard Schroeder are puppets of the USA.

:: Stupid BS. See above.

See above. I left a treat for both of you.

:: Awe shucks! Once again those pooooor Americans!!!

The German people do not blame Americans for Hitler's reckless campaign in the East.

:: No, you’re confusing Germans with their corrupt political class.

You don't seem to distinguish between the British and their leaders, come to think of it.

:: Believe it or not all studies and surveys confirm that ordinary Germans don’t wish to be occupied and have foreign armies on their territory.

Then please cite them.

:: But German politicians couldn’t care less what Germans want or wish.

Then why do Germans elect them to represent their interests? Why don't they vote for the NPD?

:: For e.g., only recently Angela Merkel (head of the “conservative” opposition) said that her government would’ve participated in the war with Iraq; the fact that 95% of Germans were against German participation didn’t seem to trouble her in the least.

But Germany did not participate in the Iraq War. Now why is that if Germany is a puppet of the US?

:: Tell us, Fade, what "the German people understand..."

That Hitler wrecked their country. That is generally the consensus.

:: I love hearing lectures about Germany from someone who lives in rural Alabama and who has never even set foot on the European continent.

I suppose the old thing funnier than that is a Canadian who "folds like a wet paper bag." ;)

:: False, Germany is a puppet of the US.

Then prove it.

:: False, Germany has been and continues to be corrupted by America.

Then prove it.

:: False, had Germany remained National Socialist after WW II and in the 1960s there would be no “current decadence in Germany.”

National Socialism self-destructed on its own accord.

:: Stop it, you gonna make me cry!!!

As I said before, I am not one of the hate the **** out of everything Nazis.

:: Sure, why talk about history at all?

There is a difference between discussing the past and living in it.

:: I’m pro-European as well

So long as Europe is in flames.

:: and had Germany won WW II Europe today would look a lot more to our liking, do you agree? Do you?

I would not have liked to see the Russians or Ukrainians exterminated or enslaved.

25th September 1941, midday

Asia, what a disquieting reservoir of men! The safety of Europe will not be assured until we have driven Asia behind the Urals. No organised Russian State must be allowed to exist west of that line. They are brutes, and neither Bolshevism nor Tsarism makes any difference -- they are brutes in a state of nature. The danger would be still greater if this space were to be Mongolised. Suddenly a wave comes foaming down from Asia and surprises a Europe benumbed by civilisation and deceived by the illusions of collective security.

Since there is no natural protection against such a flood, we must meet it with a living wall. A permanent state of war on the Eastern front will help to form a sound race of men, and will prevent us from relapsing into the softness of a Europe thrown back upon itself.

The points we have reached are dotted along areas that have retained the memory of Germanic expansion. We've been before at the Iron Gates, at Belgrade, in the Russian space.

The German past, in its totality, constitutes our patrimony, whatever may be the dynasty, whatever may be the stock from which we arise. It is important to bring together in the German Pantheon, all the glories of Germany's past -- as Ludwig I did in the eyes of the whole world.

As regards myself, I shall never live to see it, but one day my successors must be in a position to bring out from a drawer every historical date that justifies a German claim.

Once our position is consolidated, we shall be in this sphere to go back as far as the great invasions.

Berlin must be the true centre of Europe, a captial that for everybody shall be the capital.

17th October 1941, evening

In comparison with the beauties accumulated in Central Germany, the new territories in the East seem to us like a desert. Flanders, too, is only a plain -- but of what beauty! This Russian desert, we shall populate it. The immense spaces of the Eastern Front will have been the field of the greatest battles in history. We'll give this country a past.

We'll take away its character of an Asiatic steppe, we'll Europeanise it. With this object, we have undertaken the construction of roads that will lead to the southernmost point of the Crimea and to the Caucasus. These roads will be studded along their whole length with German towns, and around these towns our colonists will settle.

As for the two or three million men whom we need to accomplish this task, we'll find them quicker than we think. They'll come from Germany, Scandinavia, the Western countries and America. I shall no longer be here to see all of that, but in twenty years the Ukraine will already be a home for twenty million inhabitants besides the natives. In three hundred years, the country will be one of the loveliest gardens in the world.

As for the natives, we'll have to screen them carefully. The Jew, that destroyer, we shall drive out. As far as the population is concerned, I get a better impression in White Russia than in the Ukraine.

We shan't settle in the Russian towns, and we'll ket them fall to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We're not going to pay at children's nurse; we're absolutely without obligation as far as these people are concerned. To struggle against the hovels, chase away the fleas, provide German teachers, bring out newspapers -- very little of that for us! We'll confine ourselves, perhaps, to setting up a radio transmitter, under our control. For the rest, let them know just enough to understand our highway signs, so that they won't get themselves run over by our vehicles!

For them the word "liberty" means the right to wash on feastdays. If we arrive bringing soft soap, we'll obtain no sympathy. These are views that will have to be completely readjusted. There's only one duty: to Germanise this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins. If these people had defeated us, Heaven have mercy! But we don't hate them. That sentiment is unknown to us. We are guided only by reason. They, on the other hand, have an inferiority complex. They have a real hatred towards a conquerer whose crushing superiority they can feel. The intelligentsia? We hve too many of them at home.

All those who have the feeling for Europe can join in our work.

In this business I shall go straight ahead, cold-bloodedly. What they may think about me, at this juncture, is to me a matter of complete indifference. I don't see why a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat wheat from Canada, we don't think about the despoiled Indians.

The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practise it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell! If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!

For Ley, it will be the job of his life to drag that country out of its lethargy. Fields, gardens, orchards. Let it be a country where the work is hard, but the joy pays for the trouble.

We've given the German people what is needed to assert its position in the world. I'm glad that this call to the East has taken our attention off the Mediterranean. The South, for us, is the Crimea. To go further would be nonsense. Let us stay Nordic.

LOL its true.

Don't waste my time with crap from internet websites. Cite scholarly sources in referred journals.

LOL

What the hell are you talking about? I'm reading Germar Rudolf's Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, I have a hard copy at home but you can also find it on-line: http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndintro.html

First, his work is amply footnoted and has a copious bibliography, i.e. it's as scholarly as it gets. Secondly, the passages I quoted came from speeches made by Austrian and German politicians and excerpts from the said speeches appeared in German-language newspapers, see his footnotes for full references. What more do you want?

Non-German readers are probably not the only ones who will need an explanation regarding the continuing decay of democratic values in Germany and how this came about.[18]

In a recent speech, Günther H. Rehak, Austrian Social Democrat and formerly the personal secretary to the Austrian Federal Chancellor Dr. Kreisky, showed how the anti-Fascist movement - which fights so vehemently against any critical assessment of historiography, especially that of the Third Reich - differs from the other 'anti'-movements.[19] Whereas anti-Capitalism or anti-Communism, for example, were always a matter of personal convictions and never became institutionalized, anti-Fascism has become organizationally firmly entrenched and structured on all social levels, especially in the German-speaking countries. There are, for example, anti-Fascist cafés (such as in Vienna and Berlin), anti-Fascist bookstores, and an almost endless number of organizations that incorporate the term 'anti-Fascist' in their name or at least somewhere in their statutes. While one's reply to the question 'are you anti-Communist?' or 'are you anti-Capitalist?' has few noteworthy social repercussions, how to reply to 'are you anti-Fascist?' is becoming more and more of a sixty-four-thousand-dollar-question for people especially in German-speaking countries: anyone who then fails to clearly establish his anti-Fascist sentiments has all but disqualified himself morally.

Gerard Radnitzky has given an excellent account[20] of the origin, mechanisms and effects of German anti-Fascist opinion terrorism, a phenomenon which is also generally downplayed as 'political correctness' (PC). While PC has shown social effects in the United States, it has remained largely without pronounced consequences in the political and especially the legal arena there, and has also prompted considerable counter-currents.[21] Primarily in German-speaking countries, on the other hand, it has increasingly become the yardstick by which all political and legal decisions are measured. The origins of this development are complex. For one thing, by means of the provisions for compulsory licensing[22] the so-called re-education program of the post-WWII American government in Germany ensured that socially influential positions, particularly those in the major print and broadcast media, in historiography, and in sociology, were held by decidedly anti-Fascist, i.e., pronouncedly leftist persons, and that anti-Fascist and anti-national attitudes were deliberately fostered there. There was no free press and no academic freedom at the universities until 1955, when Germany was granted partial sovereignty. Conservative or right-wing publications could not counterbalance the economic advantages held in 1955 by the media that had been established in 1945 or shortly thereafter. The same goes for certain academic circles in German colleges and universities, where ideologically defined elements constantly perpetuate themselves. And to make sure that the situation could not change in political respects either, the so-called Office for the Protection of the Constitution was established in Germany; besides combating openly Communist political parties, this Office does all it can to shunt all conservative, national or right-wing parties and their members into a juridical void. Consequently, Germany has no major conservative or right-wing media, next to no such university or college professors, and no such political parties of any significance.

The second break which Radnitzky identifies in German post-war history is the so-called 'Student Revolt' of 1968, in the course of which German students, incited by the leftist or even Communist teachings of their professors whom the Allied occupation armies had installed in the German universities two decades earlier,[23] provoked severe riots with their pro-Communist slogans.[24] A small part of this movement descended into left-wing terrorism that kept Germany on tenterhooks in the 1970s, while the majority of these leftists began its march into the country's various institutions.[25] Today, in the late 20th century, this generation with its Socialist to Communist ideas is at the height of power. Its members are strongly represented in all facets of German society[26] and are very adept indeed at bringing public opinion under their control by means of the so-called 'Fascist Two-by-Four'[27], i.e., the way in which any and all opposition is silenced by the automatic fear of being accused of Fascist leanings. Radnitzky exposes the methods with which this manipulative, mendacious and falsifying elite uses media campaigns to bring about the downfall of persons holding dissenting opinions, and how this elite does not even balk at using or at least tolerating violence, for example in the form of assassination and arson of (insignificant) right-wing politicians or publications. The voices warning that the intellectual climate in Germany is becoming more and more poisoned by this opinion terrorism and that Germany's democracy is in grave danger are now growing louder,[28] but of course the German media, those "enemies of free society",[29] keep these voices from the public, and the rest of the world also studiously ignores them. Obviously, as was already the case before World War Two, a weak and self-destructive Germany, descending into a new totalitarian state in whose internal affairs the powers-that-be meddle at will, is again preferred to a strong German democracy, which would obviously present unwelcome economic, political and moral competition.

The chief mechanism with which these leftist circles hystericize and psycho-terrorize the German people is the so-called 'theory of collective guilt', sometimes veiled as 'collective shame' or 'collective responsibility'. Radnitzky[20] gives excellent examples describing how this method attempts to hold the German people morally, politically, and economically liable for Hitler's crimes until the end of time. The prerequisites for an implementation of this concept are: 1. the absolute acceptance of all allegations of German guilt, as well as 2. the moral (and increasingly, the legal) rejection of all attempts of revision and the hushing-up of similar or even worse crimes committed against the German people by others. By now this behavior pattern has won out not only in large sectors of German historiography and the media, but is also practiced almost without exception by the German people's political representatives. And once such practices have morally branded Germany's history and the German people in their capacity as its carriers as being 'Fascist', the self-proclaimed anti-Fascists are in a morally unassailable position, with which they can get away with almost anything.

Perhaps the best analysis of the situation of the historians engaged in exploring German contemporary history was presented by Backes, Jesse and Zitelmann in 1990.[30] They describe the sheer impossibility of getting public attention for new findings - much less even getting them published - as soon as they are considered by the public opinion to improve the image of the Third Reich. Many historians are more interested in preserving the politically correct image of this period of history rather than in supporting impartial research.[31]

...

Now I understand PS´ resignation...I´m myself in total shock about those lines and the words there.
In any case I believe that Arab author was talking about the Vikings, whim whom they traded, and not the Russians themselves. Many of those sold white slaves ended up in Spain to serve the Muslim rulers there.

But thats going off topic...as I said....I´m speechless :(