A few interesting excerpts.

"Race mixing was considered race suicide. Grant warned: "The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro, the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew."

The racial purity and supremacy doctrines embraced by America's pioneer eugenicists were not the ramblings of ignorant, unsophisticated men. They were the carefully considered ideals of some of the nation's most respected and educated figures, each an expert in his scientific or cultural field, each revered for his erudiation."

Black, p.31

"In the first decade of the twentieth century, while Galton and his circle were still publishing thin pamphlets, positing revolutionary positions at elite intellectual get-togethers and establishing a modest biometric laboratory, America was busy building a continent-wide political and scientific infrastructure. In the first decade, no government agency in Britain officially supported eugenics as a movement. But in America, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its network of state college agricultural stations lent its support as early as 1903. Galton in London did not enjoy the backing of billionaires. But on Long Island, the vast fortunes of Carnegie, Rockefeller and Harriman financed unprecedented eugenic research and lobbying organizations that developed international reach. By 1904, when Galton and his colleagues were still moderating their theories, Charles Davenport was already creating the foundations of a movement that he would soon commandeer from his British predecessors. Before 1912, the Eugenics Record Office would begin extensive family-by-family lineage investigations in prisons, hospitals and poor communities."

Ibid., p.208

A very interesting excerpt. Its sort of hard to believe the U.S. Supreme Court ever made such a ruling. We used to have so many anti-miscegenation and sterilization laws in the United States. Eugenics had been blessed by the highest court in the land. An excerpt about Buck v. Bell below. What a wise policy! Just think of all of the dysfunctional individuals and fringe elements posting here who would have never existed if this ruling was still in force today.

"The other men of the Supreme Court included Justice Louis Brandeis, the eminent Jewish human rights advocate. Another was the racist and anti-Semite James Clark McReynolds, who refused to even sit or stand next to Brandeis. The chief justice was former president William Howard Taft.

On May 2, 1927, in the plain daylight of the Supreme Court, with only Justice Pierce Butler dissenting, Justice Holmes wrote the opinion for the majority.

Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due form. She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother and an illegitimate feeble minded child. She was eighteen years old at the time of her trial of her case in the circuit court, in the latter part of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives, under careful safeguard . . . without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who if now discharged would become a menace but if incapable of procreating might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society; and that experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transition of insanity, imbecility, & c.
Holmes' opinion summarized the extensive procedural safeguards Virginia had applied, and concluded, "There is no doubt that in respect the plantiff in error has had due process of law." He continued and in many ways quoted Laughlin's model eugenical law verbatim.
The attack is not upon the procedure but upon the substantive law. It seems to be contended that in no circumstances should such an order be justified. It certainly is contended that the order cannot be justified upon the existing grounds. The judgement finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck "is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization," and thereupon makes the order . . . We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetance.
Then Holmes wrote the words that would reverberate forever.
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Ibid., p.120-121

Hey, Fade, if it was the 'horrors of Nazism' rather than the propaganda of jewry and television that changed public attitudes toward race than why didn't we all integrate in 1945 when the war ended?

American slavery was used just as much to browbeat white Americans as Hitler was, even more so. And integration was forced from above, not something that sprang up from below in a grassroots 'apology' for Hitler's racism. Your theory doesn't even make sense. The race-mixers running the NAACP since the 1920s were kikes, didn't you know? Who do you think organized the niggers into groups and financed those groups and managed them and formulated their programs and provided the legal assistance and filed the lawsuits, etc., etc. I hope you don't think niggers.

That Americans allowed integration to be forced on them by jews and colluding courts, illegally, against the constitution, against the popular will, shows what a bunch of spineless saps most of them were, who would allow their daughters to be sent to school with niggers - or, their sons to go and die fighting to secure jewish power in Europe, or both. What was it the idiots believed they were fighting for? Deemokwacy? Like the kind by which courts pressured by jews force whites to mix with blacks?

What else can I throw at you... Feminism. Did Americans accept feminism and 30,000,000 abortions because of Hitler? Or was it rather that jewish feminists were supported by the media and cultural shapers who sold Americans their 'views' like so many cans of coke? Do you really believe in Deemockwacy when you look at the white electorate? Seriously?

Was black/jewish jazz popular in the 1920s among a large number of white Americans because of corporal Hitler?

Affirmative Action. Open discrimination of whites in hiring, college admissions, civil service employment, etc. Because of Hitler, or because of the brainwashing whites receive from the jewsmedia and government schools? Guilt over Hitler or over slavery and segregation? Why any guilt at all? Is the guilt natural or is it imposed? If it is imposed, then aren't the ones imposing it the guilty party, rather than some figure or personality employed in the propaganda (Hitler)?

Do whites, ridden with guilt and shame because of Hitler's racial views, produce and market to young white people nigger rap music, or do jewish media moguls and record company execs do this?

Why was it verboten for Lindbergh to call attention to the jews pushing war in 1939 if this taboo didn't come about until after the war? Americans were already largely cowering before jewish power.

Why did the American congress and the British government officially support the creation of Israel long before WW2, in the form of the Balfour declaration and the US congress resolution to the same effect?

If jews were completely absent from the picture, and the state of Germany had tried to conquer it's eastern neighbors for it's own national/economic reasons, in the same way Europeans conquered America and the Brits won their empire, would America have been fully racially integrated by court order, and open to unlimited immigration from the third world, along with the rest of Europe? Yes or No, Bitch. Minus jews, do we get multiracialism and white extinction in 100 years?

The anglo-saxon constructed purity was hardly scientific and hardly pan-European...


..

Hey, Fade, if it was the 'horrors of Nazism' rather than the propaganda of jewry and television that changed public attitudes toward race than why didn't we all integrate in 1945 when the war ended?
Integration did begin immediately after the war ended. Perhaps you would have known this if you were not so uneducated.

"Why did the Executive branch of the federal government, in 1946, place civil rights reforms at the top of its domestic policy agenda? Why in the midst of an era marked by civil rights violations and colored by rivarly with the Soviet Union and a national phobia concerning domestic Communism that were used to justify repression at home against unions, universities, business, and even government sectors do we see improvements and a push by the Executive and Judicial branches for civl rights reforms for African-Americans? Why did the efforts of civil rights groups produce few advancements under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's liberal progressive administration, yet we see groundbreaking initiatives in civil rights sponsered by President Harry S. Truman's administration? What was the critical motivating factor behind the speedy and comprehensive intervention by the Executive branch in an area historically and traditionally reserved for state and local politics?"

Layton, International Politics and Civil Rights Polices in the United States, 1941-1960, p.2
American slavery was used just as much to browbeat white Americans as Hitler was, even more so.
That's nonsense. Reconstruction was decisively defeated and it was followed by decades of Jim Crow. The so-called Civil Rights Movement had gone nowhere for almost a hundred years until Uncle Adolf, the bumbling fool that he was, came to their rescue. Adolf Hitler was a godsend for antiracism in America.
And integration was forced from above, not something that sprang up from below in a grassroots 'apology' for Hitler's racism
Hitler's atrocities, which were blamed on his racialist pseudoscientific theories, was disgusting to civilized people throughout the West. And in the aftermath of the war, millions of Americans and Europeans, especially the gentile elites, were horrified by them. This wasn't the case previously. On the contrary, eugenics had been seen as a progressive movement beforehand. See the above quote from Holmes. That's why you see racialism falling all across the West in between 1945 and 1955.
Your theory doesn't even make sense.
Its your theory that doesn't make sense. Civil Rights organizations had been ranting about the effects of slavery for decades in America. And they generally went nowhere. And then, in 1945 and 1946, everything changes.
The race-mixers running the NAACP since the 1920s were kikes, didn't you know?
Actually, I did know that. Yet in the 1920s, we don't see racialism and eugenics falling all across America. We see the National Origins Act passing Congress and we see eugenics being blessed by the Supreme Court. We see more states adopting antimiscegenation and sterilization laws. We do see racialism declining after 1945, however.
Who do you think organized the niggers into groups and financed those groups and managed them and formulated their programs and provided the legal assistance and filed the lawsuits, etc., etc. I hope you don't think niggers.
Brown v. Board of Education came down in 1954, not 1924. Something like that would not have been possible in the 1920s. It would not have been possible in the 1930s either.

"The horrors of the Holocaust contributed to the death of theories of scientific racism and of the superiority of racial purity. These theories had enjoyed a degree of acceptibility, if not respectability, in Western Europe and the United States before the war."

Ibid., p.206
That Americans allowed integration to be forced on them by jews and colluding courts, illegally, against the constitution, against the popular will, shows what a bunch of spineless saps most of them were, who would allow their daughters to be sent to school with niggers - or, their sons to go and die fighting to secure jewish power in Europe, or both.

Americans simply would not have stood for such measures prior to World War 2. Hell. Even Franklin Roosevelt knew that. On the other hand, after the war, Hitler's atrocities disgusted Americans and Europeans in general. Racialism was associated with evil, tyranny, and genocide. It lost credibility and social respectability amongst Western elites. Forced integration was imposed on Arkansas in 1957. This was after the Brown decision which came down in 1954.
What was it the idiots believed they were fighting for? Deemokwacy?
Its funny that you ridicule democracy. State legislatures had passed anti-miscegenation and sterilization laws all across America. These were struck down by a tyrannical anti-democratic judiciary.
Like the kind by which courts pressured by jews force whites to mix with blacks?
We had segregation and Jim Crow laws in the American South before Hitler and his band of imbeciles made a mockery out of racialism.
What else can I throw at you... Feminism.
LOL. Feminism is repulsive to millions of Americans even today.
Did Americans accept feminism and 30,000,000 abortions because of Hitler?
The last time I checked, we were not having millions of abortions in the United States every year prior to 1945.
Or was it rather that jewish feminists were supported by the media and cultural shapers who sold Americans their 'views' like so many cans of coke?
You truly are just another gutter Nazi. Where was all of this feminism in the mass media during the 1920s and 1930s, if I may ask? I don't remember seeing any of it.
Do you really believe in Deemockwacy when you look at the white electorate? Seriously?
I don't think democracy is the problem in America. The problem is lack of democracy. I would love to have a popular referendum on expelling illegal aliens from the United States.
Was black/jewish jazz popular in the 1920s among a large number of white Americans because of corporal Hitler?
And blacks were still pissing in colored rest rooms, eating in colored restaurants, and sitting at the back of the bus too.
Affirmative Action. Open discrimination of whites in hiring, college admissions, civil service employment, etc.
We didn't have affirmative action in the United States prior to the Second World War. Only after the Second World War do we begin to hear about notions like that.
Because of Hitler, or because of the brainwashing whites receive from the jewsmedia and government schools?
Because of the invention of the concept 'racism' and the white guilt associated with it. I pointed this out to Linder in the other thread. Cite for me an example a use of the word 'racism' by Civil Rights Groups in the 1920s. LOL. You won't find it. It didn't exist. We only began to hear all about 'racism' in the aftermath of WW2, after it became the preferred catch-all term for linking racialism to Nazism.

Guilt over Hitler or over slavery and segregation?
Funny how we didn't see all this guilt before World War 2.
Why any guilt at all? Is the guilt natural or is it imposed?
There wasn't any guilt before 'racism' was invented. Then 'racism' was blamed for starting WW2. Then it was pointed out that the Nazis and the segregationists were both 'racists'. And that is why segregation was 'evil'.
If it is imposed, then aren't the ones imposing it the guilty party, rather than some figure or personality employed in the propaganda (Hitler)?
Hitler was a racist. And it was Hitler's racism that drove him into his destructive war. He killed millions of Europeans. Thereafter, he was associated with evil, and by extension, so was racism. Then racism became the catch-all, total critique of everything white. Only then do we see all this white guilt.
Do whites, ridden with guilt and shame because of Hitler's racial views, produce and market to young white people nigger rap music, or do jewish media moguls and record company execs do this?
We didn't see rap music in the 1920s and 1930s. Such nonsense would never have been tolerated either because state and local matters were generally not seen as any perogative of the federal government.
Why was it verboten for Lindbergh to call attention to the jews pushing war in 1939 if this taboo didn't come about until after the war?
What do you mean it was verboten that the Jews were warmongers in 1939? LOL millions of Americans shared that view. The Jews were even denounced in the U.S. Congress all the time.
Why did the American congress and the British government officially support the creation of Israel long before WW2, in the form of the Balfour declaration and the US congress resolution to the same effect?
Because, amongst other things, it was seen as an outlet for the Jews. And that is why so many antisemites in Britain and America, in Congress as well as Parliament, were enthusiastic supporters of it. They also wanted the Jews to leave America and Great Britain! They didn't want the Jews immigrating to America or Britain either, which is why they were generally not allowed to do so in the 1930s. Duh!
If jews were completely absent from the picture, and the state of Germany had tried to conquer it's eastern neighbors for it's own national/economic reasons
Nazi Germany was a menace to British and American interests in Europe.
in the same way Europeans conquered America and the Brits won their empire
There is no equivilance between Indians and fellow Europeans.
would America have been fully racially integrated by court order, and open to unlimited immigration from the third world, along with the rest of Europe?
1.) America was not open to unlimited immigration in the 1930s. The National Origins Act of 1924 had taken care of that.
2.) The Civil Rights Movement has a huge failure prior to WW2.
Yes or No, Bitch.
You are white trash.
Minus jews, do we get multiracialism and white extinction in 100 years?
Its not like there were no Jews in America or Western Europe prior to WW2.

Wait.. let me get this straight. Americans were not horrified by racist genocide as such (the indians, etc.) but only horrified by racism toward fellow Europeans, and as a result of this they decided to accept blacks as their equals and open their country to settlement from the non-white world? And... the solution to this is a return to the Anglo-Nordicist racialism prevalent in 1920s-30s?

Is that not the most convoluted, idiotic nonsense anyone's ever heard?

Wait.. let me get this straight.
What? That the Jews had lived in Europe for centuries yet by some coincidence racialism magically falls into disrepute in 1945 and 1946?
Americans were not horrified by racist genocide as such (the indians, etc.)
The Indians were not white people. And even in the case of the Indians, its not like the U.S. Government systematically exterminated them. The Indians were not racial expansionists who declared war on America either. America wasn't fighting against Indian racialists.
but only horrified by racism toward fellow Europeans, and as a result of this they decided to accept blacks as their equals and open their country to settlement from the non-white world?
Americans came to feel that it was wrong to fight a war for freedom yet at the same time deny freedom to the American Negro. They came to be convinced that it was wrong to fight an enemy with a master race ideology while upholding white supremacy in America.

"America's participation in World War II and the allies' victory in 1945 changed the social context within the United States. Victory symbolized equality and democracy and the defeat of racism. Victory constrained the subsequent social rhetoric of the victors. Allied powers "which incorporated racist dogma in their own legal codes and social structures, were impeleld to proclaim their opposition to racism" in every form. The horrific discrimination against the Jewish people in Nazi Germany put an end to previously accepted theories of scientific racism. Moreover, it paved the way for the African and Asian struggle against colonialism and for equality African Americans were no exception. In particular, the United States' leadership in World War II, and its ideological emphasis on freedom and equality, forced the United States' own discriminatory practices under a microscope."

Layton., pp.32-33
And... the solution to this is a return to the Anglo-Nordicist racialism prevalent in 1920s-30s?
All American racialists prior to WW2 were not Anglo-Saxonists or Nordicists. That's a misrepresentation of American racialism, which was generally premised upon whiteness. But I don't see anything wrong with Nordicism so long as it is defined simply as a pro-Northern European point of view.
Is that not the most convoluted, idiotic nonsense anyone's ever heard?
The only 'idiotic nonsense' in this conversation is the absurd notion that Auschwitz didn't have anything to do with the collapse of racialism.

[QUOTE=DR ANTICHRIST]Because there greed was more important at the time. Men like Franklin knew about jews and warned the other founding fathers but nothing was done. etc[/QUOTE]

The "Franklin Prophecy" against Jews was written in the 1930's.

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2004/0128pelley.php

The Feb. 3, 1934 issue of Liberation featured an unattributed article, provocatively titled, "Did Benjamin Franklin Say This About the Hebrews?" The article reproduced a lengthy excerpt from what it claimed was the diary of South Carolina's Charles Pinckney, one of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Purportedly written during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the "diary" entry recorded Franklin saying that while the new country must guard against religious tyranny, a more severe threat was at hand: "This greater menace, gentlemen, is the Jew!"

The entry quoted further from Franklin's supposed screed, which urged barring Jewish immigration to the new United States: "In whatever country Jews have settled in any great numbers they have lowered its moral tone. ... If you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children's children will curse you in your graves!"

A dramatic declaration, to be sure – but a fictitious one. There's no evidence that Franklin ever made those remarks, much less that Pinckney ever wrote them down, according to numerous subsequent historical investigations of the "Franklin Prophecy."

[QUOTE=Fritz Kuhn]The Feb. 3, 1934 issue of Liberation featured an unattributed article, provocatively titled, "Did Benjamin Franklin Say This About the Hebrews?" The article reproduced a lengthy excerpt from what it claimed was the diary of South Carolina's Charles Pinckney, one of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Purportedly written during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the "diary" entry recorded Franklin saying that while the new country must guard against religious tyranny, a more severe threat was at hand: "This greater menace, gentlemen, is the Jew!"

The entry quoted further from Franklin's supposed screed, which urged barring Jewish immigration to the new United States: "In whatever country Jews have settled in any great numbers they have lowered its moral tone. ... If you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children's children will curse you in your graves!"

A dramatic declaration, to be sure – but a fictitious one. There's no evidence that Franklin ever made those remarks, much less that Pinckney ever wrote them down, according to numerous subsequent historical investigations of the "Franklin Prophecy."[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't rule out Franklin having said something of this nature, and being quoted by one of the Pinckneys' saying it.

Nineteenth Century historian Benson Lossing loved to collect these trivia sayings & quotes of the founders, and Lossing was the main historian of the Appleton Publishing Company. Appleton is usually given as the source for the semitically incorrect sayings of both Franklin and Washington.

Some of Lossing's work is published on the internet, you may not find anything semitically incorrect, or just mildly politically incorrect, but you will find in Lossing tons of interesting facts, and things that have been long forgotten about early America, early American history, and our forefathers.

Interesting thing too, is that the jew historians, use Lossing quite a bit in their published works on early America---but---they never cite Lossing or give him credit. Often times they twist an idea or research done by Lossings to fit their jew-cultural marxist-multiculturalist agenda.

One thing that concerns me is the the jew historians maybe hiding or destroying documents that show the founders true opinions. I hope this isn't occuring, but, I wouldn't bet that it's not!

"When the war ended four years later, international eugenics reorganized, with America retaining its leadership. The Second International Congress of Eugenics was rescheduled for September 1921, still in New York, under the auspices of the Washington-based National Research Council, the administrative arm of America's prestigious, Congressionally-chartered National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences functioned as a way of uniting America's disparate scientific establishments. As it had for the first congress, the State Department mailed the invitations around the world. Although the National Research Council was the official authorizing body, Davenport wrote his colleagues that it was "up to the New York group to put this Congress through."

The "New York group" was led by Laughlin, Mrs. Harriman and Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race. In addition to being among the world's leading raceologists, Grant was a trustee for the American Museum of Natural History. The museum became the titular sponser of the second congress. The museum's premises were used for the congress's meetings and exhibits, its staff helped with the details, and its president, Henry Osborn, a eugenicist himself, was named president of the international gathering. The museum's name was prominently displayed on the published proceedings, as though the congress were just another museum function. All of this imbued the event with a distinctly evolutionary and anthropological quality. This was exactly the intent of congress organizers. They wanted the event to be seen as a milestone in the natural history of the human species.

The second congress was rich with typical raceological dogma and dominated by American biological precepts. Alexander Graham Bell assumed the honorary presidency. The proceeding were divided into four sections: comparative heredity, the human family, racial differences and "Eugenics and the State." Delegates from every continent attended to share eugenic principles and to form legislative game plans they could take back home. Osborn's opening address represented a challenge from America. "In certain parts of Europe," he set forth, "the worst elements of society have gained the ascendency and threaten the destruction of the best." He recognized that "To each of the countries of the world, racial betterment prevents a different aspect . . . Let each . . . consider its own problems . . ." But in the final analysis it came down to one mandate: "As science has enlightened government in the prevention and spread of disease, it must also enlighten government in the prevention of the spread and multiplication of worthless members of society . . ."

Osborn also repeated the standard eugenic idea: "The true spirit of American democracy that all men are born with equal rights and duties has been confused with the political sophistry that all men are born with equal character and ability to govern themselves . . ."

Not only was the rhetoric American, but so was the science. Out of fifty-three scientific papers, all but twelve were produced by American eugenicists on American issues, all conforming to the Carnegie Institution's sociopolitical strategies."

Ibid., pp.236-237

http://www.heretical.com/ohrdruff/streich.jpgthe Hitler Youth (Jugend) Movement marching past.
The National Socialists of Germany took great pride in their youth and encouraged them in all aspects of social life, a far cry from the filthy zionist governments of today who do exactly the opposite by encouraging Aryan youth to racemix and imitate the imported African Primates (Niggers).

Keep in mind that Hitler would never have lasted past 1935 if HE DID NOT DELIVER. National Socialism works! Jews, always mindful of those who know about jewish mischief, remark in one of two ways concerning the Third Reich: (1) Hitler used his evil powers to hypnotize an otherwise good people or, (2) "...every once in a while the German people go mad."


The "holocaust" yarns were used to legally murder German leaders, set up their extortion racket without opposition, and browbeat the goyim into submission using the whip of self-guilt. Now that they feel total control over America has been achieved, the necessity for subduing revisionists is not longer necessary. The "holocaust", except for its religious trappings, will vanish from factual history as did the "cutting off of babies' hands" and "raping of Nuns" propaganda of the WWI.

The insane jewish hatred of Hitler certainly indicates that he must have done something great for the gentiles.

bunch of quotes. is there a point? Fade is stuck in the 20s? wishes NS hadnt have happened? we got that opinion from the other thread, thanks. doesnt change much does it?

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]bunch of quotes. is there a point? Fade is stuck in the 20s? wishes NS hadnt have happened? we got that opinion from the other thread, thanks. doesnt change much does it?[/QUOTE]

This discussion, and a similar discussion really belong down in the history section of the forum.

Let me say this about fade, he really doesn't understand German history. Of course most Americans, and most wannabe nazis don't understand German history either.

For example, if Kurt von Schleicher, the German military politician had become dictator of Germany rather than Hitler would things have been any better for the jews? Probably not. Schleicher had been responsible for a number of jews, including Liebnacht and Luxumberg, getting bullets in the back of their heads. Hitler had talked about it---von Schleicher had actually done it. He had put down jew led revolts in Germany.

Or Otto Welles of the SPD, as Welles told the Nazis, I have called for everything you are calling for---only I called for it a dozen years ago. Where were you?

The jews were headed for a fall in Germany regardless of who came to power. This is why jews like Henry Kissinger, Einstein, von Mises, the various members of the jew Frankfurt and Austrian schools started leaving Germany in the late 1920's, early 1930.

Hitler wasn't the only game in town.

[QUOTE=El Duce]Keep in mind that Hitler would never have lasted past 1935 if HE DID NOT DELIVER. National Socialism works![/quote]
What did he deliver? He was enormously lucky. The depression in Germany bottomed out in 1932 and the economy was already recovering when he came to power in early 1933.
Jews, always mindful of those who know about jewish mischief, remark in one of two ways concerning the Third Reich: (1) Hitler used his evil powers to hypnotize an otherwise good people or, (2) "...every once in a while the German people go mad."
This is another example of how you people reduce everything to the Jews, as if all criticism of Nazism in Germany is of Jewish origin. This is simply an easy way to smear critics and silence all debate. Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger both had a falling out with the Nazis as well. Neither were Jews.
The "holocaust" yarns were used to legally murder German leaders, set up their extortion racket without opposition, and browbeat the goyim into submission using the whip of self-guilt.
Whatever. No one is forcing Germans to pay reparations to Jews today, much less the United States. It should also be noted that decent people might feel genuine remorse for the massacare of innocent people and civilians by their government on a colossal scale. No conspiracy is necessary to explain this.
Now that they feel total control over America has been achieved, the necessity for subduing revisionists is not longer necessary.
*sigh*

I could just as easily make the argument that Mexicans have total control over the United States government because of our lax immigration policies.
The "holocaust", except for its religious trappings, will vanish from factual history as did the "cutting off of babies' hands" and "raping of Nuns" propaganda of the WWI.
You live in a fantasy world. You make illogical arguments that you cannot support with any credible evidence. You don't even make an attempt to do this. No rational person anywhere is going to take your constant ranting and raving seriously.
The insane jewish hatred of Hitler certainly indicates that he must have done something great for the gentiles.
Once again, El Duce reduces everything to the Jews. This ignores the fact that most of Hitler's victims were fellow Europeans and his own people. But anyway, carry on with your spurious, ridiculous, irrational arguments.

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]bunch of quotes. is there a point? [/quote]
The point was that, despite the accusations some have made, Nazism was never necessary to 'save us' in the West. Things weren't so bad in the West before Hitler came to power. There was no mass nonwhite immigration. In fact, the National Origins Act of 1924 would have ensured that America remain a white nation. There were anti-miscegenation and sterilization laws in many U.S. states. Eugenics had been blessed by the U.S. Supreme Court as late as 1927. There was a powerful mass movement, supported by tens of millions of Americans, against the Jews. There is every indication that had this movement not been destroyed by the Second World War that Jewish influence in U.S. would have eventually been severely curtailed. Racialism was socially respectable and had been making enormous gains. But not only that, racialism and eugenics was spreading all across Northwestern Europe. Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, and Finland all enacted sterilization laws and other eugenic legislation. There was no mass immigration of nonwhites to Scandinavia. Germany was actually a late comer in this worldwide movement. That's why German racialism and eugenics was so heavily reliant upon the work of foreigners in the beginning, especially Americans.
Fade is stuck in the 20s?
I am not stuck in the 1920s. I am just pointing out what life was like before Nazism and what direction it was likely to head in. Nazism changed all of this.
wishes NS hadnt have happened?
Absolutely. Prior to Nazism, racialism was socially respectable in every single Western nation. And prior to Nazism, the eugenics movement had been winning victory after victory across the world, especially in Northwestern Europe where fascism was such a miserable failure. Fascism tended to flourish in the countries that either rejected or vulgarized eugenics.
we got that opinion from the other thread, thanks. doesnt change much does it?
We would be living in a very different world today had Hitler and his movement never come to power in Germany.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

The point was that, despite the accusations some have made, Nazism was never necessary to 'save us' in the West.[/QUOTE]
Finally, Junior (inadvertently) makes some sense.

Had there been no National Socialist resistance, all Europe and the UK would have fallen to Stalin, and the US would have been convincingly alerted to the world-conquering insanity motivating the crypto-anarchist Bolshevik regime.

World War II would then have involved the strategic might of the US directed against the SU, assuming that ongoing Jewish treason would then not have granted the SU atomic weapons in time to deter a preemptive American assault.

Of course, the Germans could not have been expected to have acquiesced in national suicide for the sake of preserving an otherwise bovine, Jew-manipulated American population. And so we had, rather, the heroic struggle of Germany to fulfill the upward, imperial destiny of the West, without its fully knowing that it was burdened in this regard and without its being properly prepared, and appropriately supported internationally, for this enterprise.

NN

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

I am not stuck in the 1920s. I am just pointing out what life was like before Nazism and what direction it was likely to head in. Nazism changed all of this.[/QUOTE]
Junior is self-confessedly a linguistic post-modernist, so we must understand that his use of "Nazism" does not actually reference historic National Socialism (though his intention is that you take it as such).

"Nazism" has to be taken, by implication of Junior's epistemological orientation, as simply that mere perspective that is popularly in hand (which we properly understand to have been handed down over decades by the Jewish media/academy/regime of subversion). The Goyim, of course, know nothing of historic National Socialism by virtue of direct, unfiltered, experience - thus "Nazism" is merely a factor in a Morality Play for the Morons, to the mild revision of which script Junior is generously offering some suggested enhancements.

NN

Just an interesting excerpt that I came across today. I didn't know President Calvin Coolidge was a Nordicist.

"In 1925, the president kept coolly silent as forty thousand costumed Klansmen paraded through the streets of Washington, D.C. Still, there were benefits to Coolidge's reticence; many of his utterances, such as when he declared, "Biological laws shows us that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races," hardly helped out the cause of equal rights."

Philip A. Klinkner and Rogers M. Smith, The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press), p.123

Finally, Junior (inadvertently) makes some sense.
Yawns.
Had there been no National Socialist resistance, all Europe and the UK would have fallen to Stalin, and the US would have been convincingly alerted to the world-conquering insanity motivating the crypto-anarchist Bolshevik regime.
That is beyond absurd. But since you are also of the point of view that the Soviet Union is currently faking its own demise in the greatest conspiracy in world history, it does not really surprise me that you would continue to make such preposterous claims. Yeah. The Soviets sure had a lot of success taking out Poland in the 1920s and Finland in 1939. One may also find himself wondering where the Soviet war machine came from in the first place. Where did all that advanced technology come from that the Soviets got their hands on? The truth? In large part, from engaging in extensive trade with Germany during the 1920s and 1930s after the Rapallo Agreement.
World War II would then have involved the strategic might of the US directed against the SU, assuming that ongoing Jewish treason would then not have granted the SU atomic weapons in time to deter a preemptive American assault.
The United States and the Soviet Union did not start the Second World War. Adolf Hitler did that when he attacked Poland. Then he attacked almost every other nation in Europe before he was stopped. And when he went to his grave, he had already been planning to attack even more nations.
Of course, the Germans could not have been expected to have acquiesced in national suicide for the sake of preserving an otherwise bovine, Jew-manipulated American population.
Hitler was utterly clear about his intentions in the East. He talked all about it in Mein Kampf, the [i]Zweites Buch, in private conservations with his associates, and still better in the Table Talk. Quotes from all of these sources have been posted by myself on The Phora and Stormfront. There is a mountain of scholarship that has been done on the issue as well that shows just how preposterous the claims you are making here actually are.
And so we had, rather, the heroic struggle of Germany to fulfill the upward, imperial destiny of the West, without its fully knowing that it was burdened in this regard and without its being properly prepared, and appropriately supported internationally, for this enterprise.
ROFL. The imperial destiny of the West? By what stretch of the imagination is Japan a Western nation? Great Britain is a Western nation. So is France. Hitler went to war with both of these nations. He also attacked the United States, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. He was at war with Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand too. He had plans to attack Sweden and Switzerland after the war. His ridiculous war destroyed Europe and precipitated the collapse of the British and French Empires.

[QUOTE=Keystone]Coolidge never ate much Italian cooking. The Italian immigrants I grew up with elevated cooking and eating to an art (yum!) and practiced Catholicism with a zeal and passion that put the WASPS to shame. They enjoyed life.

God Bless 'em.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Italian food is great.

Where did Australia and New Zealand fit into Hitler's New Order? Oh. That's right. They didn't.

"If Germany had won the Second World War, neither Italy nor Turkey, nor any state in the Near or Middle East could have withstood Germany pressure, and the extension of German influence in Asia would have halted only at the boundries of the Japanese sphere of interest. Where these boundries would be drawn was never determined, but if negotiations on this question had ever taken place it is possible that they would have been based on the German-Japanese military agreement of December 1941, which provided for the division of the world into spheres of military operation along the seventieth degree of longitude, an agreement which left Germany and Italy responsible for the territory west of that line, Japan for the territory to the east. This would have meant that Siberia, China, India, and the greater part of Pakistan would have fallen to the Japanese, while the Arab countries, with Africa, Afghanistan, would have gone to the Axis. There is the further possibility that this agreement would have been modified to leave Afghanistan to the Japanese in exchange for an extension of the German sphere of influence in Russia, as the economic office of the OKW had recommended when the December agreement was under negotiation.

Hitler himself speculated on this problem in January of 1941. "Where, in fact, is the frontier between East and West to be laid down?" he asked after the Japanese captured Singapore. To this question he could provide no consistent or satisfactory answer. As the Japanese overran one European territory after another in East Asia, he believed they would conquer Australia too and that the white race would disappear altogether from these regions. For Hitler this representated a turning point in history. "It means the loss of a whole continent, and one might regret it, for it's the white race which is the loser." It was nevertheless an immense relief to him that the Japanese had entered the war, for Japan was the only first-class military power on Germany's side and one on which he was certain he could rely. After the war, too, Hitler believed it would be in Germany's interest if Japan retained the preponderant position it was gaining in the Pacific, for Japan was Germany's chief safeguard against the United States. He could feel no affinity with the Japanese, Hitler said, for their way of life and culture were entirely too foreign, but he felt real hatred and repugnance for the Americans.

Some weeks later Hitler again spoke of the desirability for Germany of preserving its alliance with Japan. When the time came for making peace, he did not think the Japanese would create any serious difficulties if they were given all of Asia. He doubted whether they were capable of digesting India and he now wondered whether they would in fact be interested in taking over Australia and New Zealand. As a result of their alliance with Germany, they would feel a great sense of security and would have no further reason to fear anyone. But for Germany, too, this alliance would be an essential guarantee of tranquility. "There's one thing Japan and Germany have in common," Hitler said. "That both of us need fifty to a hundred years for purposes of digestion: we for Russia, they for the Far East."

Although Hitler was not certain whether Japan would seize Australia and New Zealand, it is obvious that he was prepared to concede these territories, like the rest of East Asia, to the Japanese sphere of interest. If the Japanese had indeed conquered Australia and New Zealand -- and they almost certainly would have attempted to do so, if only for reasons of security -- it may be assumed that Hitler would have offered the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of these countries sanctuary in his Germanic Reich and would have attempted to recruit them as colonists in the newly won territories of the east. When Germanic settlement had reached the boundries of the Japanese Empire in East Asia, the descendants of these Australians and New Zealanders would have the opportuniy to take their revenge on Japan. But such possibilities lay many decades, perhaps centuries, in the future."

Norman Rich, Hitler's War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974), p.415-416

We went over this issue before. Here is NeoNietzsche's reaction, so typical of cut throat Nazis that I have encountered. NeoNietzsche endorses the destruction of white nations by Mongoloids.

FadeTheButcher: Interesting. NeoNietzsche has become an apologist for a Mongoloid nation with sought to destroy Australia.
NeoNietzsche: As with Hitler, I would sacrifice the Australians for the greater good.

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4078&page=18&pp=10&highlight=australia

Here is NeoNietzsche, a Nazi, endorsing the rape of women:

NeoNietzsche:Genuinely sophisticated individuals, as opposed to bourgeois bumpkins, anarchists, libertarians, and other intellectual provincials, admire rather than disparage such regimes for their elevation of culture, subsidized by the conscription and tribute of the conquered.
FadeTheButcher:I suppose NeoNietzsche considers the mass barbaric rape of women to be an elevation of culture. Yes, NeoNietzsche is one truly sophisticated individual. Perhaps one day we will rise to his level.
NeoNietzsche: It may be contra-indicated in certain circumstances, but, as an absolute rule, it is not wrong.
FadeTheButcher: Alright. The gallery just heard it. NeoNietzsche does not believe the rape of women is wrong.
NeoNietzsche: Rape and pillage in war may, on balance, be advantageous to the invader.
FadeTheButcher: This is so sick and repulsive that I am at a loss looking for the words to express my disgust.

The United States and the Soviet Union did not start the Second World War. Adolf Hitler did that when he attacked Poland.



As I pointed out before at VNNF:

1. Poland's 1939 treaty with Britain was not properly ratified.

2. Hitler demanded the return of the land that was stolen from Germany at least twice. Instead of giving that land back to Germany, Poland prepared for war with Germany - going so far as to move airplanes to more-secure areas.

Why do you put the burden of who-started-WWII on Germany, Fade?




------

1. Poland's 1939 treaty with Britain was not properly ratified.
The only regret that I have is that the United States waited until 1941 to declare war on Hitler. Britain should have never went to Munich either. And Britain was entirely free to come to the aid of Poland if she desired to do so.
2. Hitler demanded the return of the land that was stolen from Germany at least twice.
Which would have been utterly stupid for Poland to return to Germany, in light of the fate of Czechoslovakia. Hitler was simply using Danzig as a pretext to stir up a war against the Poles. He himself admitted this as well to his own generals.
Instead of giving that land back to Germany, Poland prepared for war with Germany - going so far as to move airplanes to more-secure areas.
Poland was not going to be Austria or Czechoslovakia. And Great Britain and France were willing to come to the aid of the Poles. Hitler was not interested in arriving at a peaceful solution with Poland either, anymore than he was with the Czechs.
Why do you put the burden of who-started-WWII on Germany, Fade?
Because there is overwhelming evidence to that effect.

Blah blah blah.

And exactly which specific group of unmentionable people had enormous wealth and almost total control of the American mass media in those days? Any particular group of people? No? It was all just perfectly objective, no agendas were being followed, nobody had special interests and there was not a single case of bias in all that was reported about the world in those days.

Think about something, Fade. This is hypothetical but it is hoped that it will illustrate the power of the big media in this and other countries. If America's population was about 100 million in 1940, and we sent 1 million soldiers to fight those evil Nazis...that left 99 million people who got EVERY SINGLE THING THEY KNEW ABOUT WWII FROM THE CONTROLLED MEDIA. Can anyone here imagine that sort of undreamed of power? The power to literally craft reality-to dictate the truth-to have total control over what millions and millions and millions of people THINK they know about the world. It doesn't matter what really happened in such a scenario. There's just a huge unknown across the ocean and a bunch of jews interpreting everything for countless white Americans. I may be over-simplifying, but I'll say it before and again, the media, and especially Hollywood, was firmly in jewish hands, as Lindbergh and Ford warned. This fact CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED when our armchair historians start quibbling over Nazi Germany and the implications of Hitler's rise. Just think about 99 million people learning everything they knew about Nazism from a jew-controlled press. Frightening, really.

FtheB talks about this and that, citing sources, refuting anyone who disagrees with him, but never once comes across the obvious fact that the jews were and are in control of all mass media.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue over all this semantics and hair-splitting with all knowing college kids who have grown up in this demented society we call the Kwa. So I made my point. And it's a whopper.

Actually, England started the war.
The war began when Germany attacked Poland. Then England and France came to the aid of Poland.
They instigated the new Polish government into provoking the Germans, violating the non-aggression pact that was signed with Pilsudski.
I disagree. The British issued a guarantee of Poland, in the sole event that Poland was attacked by Germany. Hitler, of course, considered it an outrage that one of his neighbors was entitled to the right of self defense.
Oh, by the way, Hitler attended the funeral of THAT "Untermensch" and after invading Poland a detatchment of his personal honor guard was posted at his tomb until the Germans were finally driven out.
We all know how Hitler felt about the Poles now. From the Goebbels Diaries:

10 October 1939 (Tuesday)

"The Fuhrer's verdict on the Poles is damning. More like animals than human beings, completely primitive, stupid and amorphous. And a ruling class that is an unsatisfactory result of a mingling between the lower orders and an Aryan master race. The Poles dirtiness is unimaginable. Their capacity for intelligent judgement is absolute nil."
Oh before you respond, yes we know- YOU READ A BOOK!!!
I have read lots of books on the subject, primary sources in particular. And I have been convinced by this evidence that the notion that Hitler was some sort of pan-Aryan hero is a delusion that simply does not correlate with the facts.
As stated before, there are plenty of books which proclaim that the white race has oppressed all peoples of the Earth unjustly for the past 2000 years or so, or that Nazis made people into soap, or that race doesn't exist, and so on.
I can read Hitler's own words. Are you familar with them? I am.
"Germany cannot hope to come into consideration in any way in this development. The entire mentality of current and future Russia is opposed to it. For Germany, a future alliance with Russia has no sense, neither from the standpoint of sober expediency nor form that of a human connection. On the contrary -- it is fortunate for the future that this development took place in this way, because it broke a spell that would have prevented us from seeking the goal of German foreign policy in the one and only place possible: space in the East."

Adolf Hitler as translated by Krista Smith, Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), pp.148-154
Why are you so inclined to believe anti-Nazi propaganda but claim to be against any number of other "Big Lies" that are commonly accepted in today's society.
I have an even better question. Why are you so inclined to believe Nazi propaganda when it is directly contradicted by overwhelming massive documented evidence? I don't have to read secondary sources. I can draw my own conclusions by going straight to the horse's mouth. And that is precisely what I have done.
You constantly talk about what Hitler did and what he would have done, forgetting that what he WOULD have done is of no consequence.
That's hilarious. I constantly hear, on this website and others, about how the world would have been such a better place had Hitler won his war. So no, what he would have done had he achieved victory is of critical importance.
In fact you really have no way of knowing what he would have done because many of Hitler's actions contradicted words that he wrote many years before coming to power(e.g. Mein Kampf).
Hitler talked in Mein Kampf about his policy of space. He talks about it again, in 1927, in the Zweites Buch. He mentions it in this speeches throughout the 1930s. He talks about it with his associates. He talks ALL ABOUT IT in the Table Talk. He implements the actual policies he discussed in the territories that fell under German control in Poland. Historians have got it all wrong!
As stated before, I have plenty of quotes from the era regarding the policy toward Slavs and so on, but I'm not going to be dragged down into the same nonsense that I have been fighting for the past four years.
Hitler thought the Slavs were subhuman animals who should be subordinated to the German master race. I can post quotes from Hitler all day to that effect. He was, however, entirely willing to settle for Slavic auxillaries on several occasions. But that did not contradict his worldview. Such mercenaries were only serving the Germans. That was his entire point.
National Socialism lives in the writings of William Gayley Simpson, Savitri Devi, and Povl Riijs Knudson.
National Socialism lives on in the ranting and raving of El Duce, Draco, and Colonel Kurtz as well. National Socialism destroyed racialism in the West. I am going to savor the opportunity, in just a moment, to provide even more evidence to that effect.
If you cannot seperate it from the NSDAP and the circumstances of its era which demanded the action that was taken(and probably much less than was needed) then you are no better than the freak who marches around in an SA uniform.
The ridiculous pseudoscientific policies of the NSDAP, not the Jews, are directly responsible for the collapse of racialism throughout the West in the aftermath of World War 2. I can prove this as well. The sources that Kevin MacDonald cite discuss the issue in detail. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is just the truth.
I realize that we have to take into account that the average person knows only perspective, not truth, and that they in many cases have know desire to know truth.
The truth of the matter seems to be conflicting with your ideology, J.P. You are having an awfully hard time digesting certain critical facts. You are stretching yourself to the limit trying to make excuses for Hitler. I get the impression that you are a decent intelligent person, unlike many of the other people I have encountered on this website. I disagree with you on this issue. Having reviewed the evidence myself, I am convinced that the case against Hitler is airtight.

FtheB talks about this and that, citing sources, refuting anyone who disagrees with him, but never once comes across the obvious fact that the jews were and are in control of all mass media.
The difference between FadeTheButcher and everyone else who seems to be posting in these threads is that FadeTheButcher actually takes the time to go check out these accusations for himself. I don't dismiss professional historians out of hand either simply because baseless ad hominem accusations of conspiracies are made against them.

So I say: show me your evidence. Lets see your evidence that the Jews 'are in control of all mass media'. I haven't seen this, although I have seen the accusation made again and again. Linder made a lot of bogus accusations about the British Press before WW2 which I had no problem refuting.

Wrong wrong wrong, again Fade. Hitler demaned only Danzig from Poland. He offered during the invasion to pay reparations and remove troops if the Poles would relent. England and France never lifted a finger to help Poland during the invasion, and it cost Poland the short lived war. Then they sold her our to Stalin. Noble countries they were.
What was the cause of the whole brouhaha over Poland?

"It was almost as if Hitler had received a license to risk war and the next day a confident Führer gathered the senior Wehrmacht officers in his study at the chancellory. The solution of Germany's economic problems, he explained, had somehow become inextricably tied to her difference with Poland. "Danzig is not the subject of this dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our Lebensraum in the East and of securing our food supplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problems."

Therefore Poland (which would always side with Germany's enemies despite treaties of friendship) must be destroyed. "We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair," he warned. "There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland." He reserved to himself the right to give the final order to attack since battle with Poland would be successful only if the West stayed on the sidelines. "If this is impossible, then it will be better to attack in the West and settle Poland at the same time."

The contradiction puzzled his listeners and, while most were staggered by Hitler's words, faithful Keitel convinced himself that the Führer was only trying to show his commanders that their misgivings were unfounded and that war would not really break out. This despite Hitler's next words: a bald prediction of a "life and death" war against England and France. "The idea that we can get off cheaply is dangerous; there is no such possibility. We must burn our boats, and it is no longer a question of justice or injustice, but of life or death for eighty million human beings." The basic aim was to force England to her knees. "We shall not be forced into a war," he said, but we shall not be able to avoid one."

This was not the irrational ranting of a man possessed by the will to conquer but an admission that Germany could not continue as a great nation without war. Only the limitless resources of the East could save the Reich; and the alternative, accomodation with the West, entailed unacceptable risks. If he exposed to the world that he had been bluffing and shirked from the test of war, German prestige and power would deflate like a leaky balloon."

Toland., p.531

"At any rate, he acted like a carbon copy of Hitler as he peremptorily brushed aside all of Ciano's eloquent pleas for a peaceful solution. Finally Ciano asked what Ribbentrop wanted: the Corridor or Danzig? "Not that anymore," was the answer. "We want war."

John Toland, Adolf Hitler (New York: Anchor Books, 1992), p.538

Ribbentrop also told Ciano that the 'merciless destruction of Poland was inevitable'. And this led Ciano to conclude that:

'The decision to fight is implacable. He [Ribbentrop] rejects any solution which might give satisfaction to Germany and avoid the struggle'.

Ciano's Diary 1939-1945, ed. Malcolm Muggeridge, London and Toronto, 1947, p.124

Here it comes. More proof that Hitler and Nazism are responsible for the decline of racialism:

"Given the New Deal was largely ineffective in forcing the nation to confront Jim Crow, it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was instead the emergence of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s that most set the stage for the real transformations. The Nazi menace forced at least some white Americans to begin to reexamine the racial inequalities in their midst. As historian John Higham wrote, notions of white supremacy began to wane in intellectual circles as "Hitler's demonstration of the fruits of racism inflicted a moral shock on every sensitive mind."

Klinker and Smith, The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America, p.137

"But American scholars adopted premises of racial equality most of all, the historian Carl Degler has concluded, as a result of "the impact of Nazi practices had on American scholarly thinking about race and biology in human affairs." Even a formerly ardent eugenicist and defender of Nazi science, Paul Popenoe, later said "the major factor" in the declining popular of his views "was undoubtedly Hitlerism." Degler contends this "impact can hardly be overestimated in explaining why during the 1930s and 1940s concepts and terms like 'heredity', 'biological differences', and 'instinct' dropped below the horizon in social science.

The impact, moreover, was increasingly not confined to academic discussions of race. "The terrifying popularity of Nazi racist doctrines," wrote Gary Gerstle, "forced American liberals to reconsider their 'hands-off' approach to problems of . . . racial hatred . . . Racism and prejudice had to be subjects of political commentary and targets of social action." As many white Americans gradually awakened to the ideological and military threats posed by Hitler, they realized that meeting these threats was especially difficult when America tolerated similar racist and undemocratic practices at home. As early as 1933, socialist leader Norman Thomas asked, "How can we either protest Hitlerism with good grace or hope to escape similar ills in America when we chronically carry out a more thoroughgoing discrimination aginst our colored fellow citizens than he has yet imposed upon the Jews?" Later, Atlanta Constitution editor Ralph McGill pointed out, "We can't do much pointing of the accusing finger at Adolf Hitler or ell Doochey for trying to give their people and exaggerated idea of the supremacy of their blood. We have the Klan."

As the need to confront fascism abroad meant facing up to Jim Crow at home, liberals increasingly made the connection between "Deutschland and Dixieland." In 1935, Senator Edward P. Costigan of Colorado, cosponser of an antilynching bill, told his colleagues that the legislation presented America with a "choice between Hitler and Mussolini on the one side, and Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Henry Grady, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the other."

Ibid., p.138

American (and Indo-European) problems are not solely limited to race.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]"Given the New Deal was largely ineffective in forcing the nation to confront Jim Crow, it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was instead the emergence of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s that most set the stage for the real transformations. The Nazi menace forced at least some white Americans to begin to reexamine the racial inequalities in their midst. As historian John Higham wrote, notions of white supremacy began to wane in intellectual circles as "Hitler's demonstration of the fruits of racism inflicted a moral shock on every sensitive mind."

Klinker and Smith, The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America, p.137[/QUOTE]

You might however point to 1865 for some of the more profound changes to race relations in America.

Regardless of what the generals said, Presidents justified increasing world domination with the "we're the good guys" excuse.

So IMHO you may have it backwards: the reason Hitler's "racism" (it wasn't) was demonized at all was the needs of the Americans, not the other way around.

[QUOTE=J.P. Slovjanski]I've already posted a short list of Slavs, armed, trained, funded, and fed by the Germans alone(not counting armies of Slavic nations). [/QUOTE]

The Nazis (don't know about Hitler personally) viewed Slavs, English, Irish, Americans, Italians in the same light: although there was extensive admixture, as tribes they were worth saving and cultivating through eugenics.

The reason the Russians bore anti-Slavic hatred from the Germans was the Russian Revolution's execution of the higher castes of that civilization, that lowering its genetic level considerably. This is why even today most educated people consider the Russians broken people from a backward land.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Yawns.

That is beyond absurd. But since you are also of the point of view that the Soviet Union is currently faking its own demise in the greatest conspiracy in world history, it does not really surprise me that you would continue to make such preposterous claims. Yeah. The Soviets sure had a lot of success taking out Poland in the 1920s and Finland in 1939. One may also find himself wondering where the Soviet war machine came from in the first place. Where did all that advanced technology come from that the Soviets got their hands on? The truth? In large part, from engaging in extensive trade with Germany during the 1920s and 1930s after the Rapallo Agreement.

The United States and the Soviet Union did not start the Second World War. Adolf Hitler did that when he attacked Poland. Then he attacked almost every other nation in Europe before he was stopped. And when he went to his grave, he had already been planning to attack even more nations.

Hitler was utterly clear about his intentions in the East. He talked all about it in Mein Kampf, the [i]Zweites Buch, in private conservations with his associates, and still better in the Table Talk. Quotes from all of these sources have been posted by myself on The Phora and Stormfront. There is a mountain of scholarship that has been done on the issue as well that shows just how preposterous the claims you are making here actually are.

ROFL. The imperial destiny of the West? By what stretch of the imagination is Japan a Western nation? Great Britain is a Western nation. So is France. Hitler went to war with both of these nations. He also attacked the United States, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. He was at war with Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand too. He had plans to attack Sweden and Switzerland after the war. His ridiculous war destroyed Europe and precipitated the collapse of the British and French Empires.[/QUOTE]No, race traitor - it was not Hitler's war only. The jews had at least as much at stake in seeing the balance of power altered in Europe. They wanted the only bulwark against their red juggernaut removed. And just take a guess as to who they considered their #1 impediment. Hey, if it took a fracticidal war with the loss of tens of millions of goyim, well, afterall....we are talking about the welfare of the Chosen Race here, are'nt we? (Want me to drag up all the unimpeachable quotes by prominent kikes throughout the 30's screaming for war against Germany at the top of their lungs? On both sides of the Atlantic? Before the Nuremburg Laws and other policies even went into effect?) Your jew masters controlled German politics on all levels - from town/burg up to national. Communists were rampant in teens and 20's Germany media, business, and govt - running the nation into the ground and helping to set up the traitorous loss of the Army in WWI. Adolph Hitler, you scumbag, would not have been possible if not for your much-adored juden and their benevolent ways as witnessed by the German people themselves. He was the absolute antithesis of the thoroughly jew-controlled communist party and its various front groups. In 1930, NSDAP snagged scores of parliamentary seats from the half-steppin' Social Dems, setting up the political showdown that was to come with the reds. It came down to an internal contest between two polar ideologies, you fuckin' fathead: NS, and your side - communism. It's that simple: there was to be no middle ground.

The German citizenry did'nt need AH or anyone else for that matter to tell them that the jewish financial elite and Zionist kike scum were selling out the fatherland to any and all would-be revolutionaries and other assorted egalitarian assholes who furthered jewish interests in even the slighest degree.

btw - fuck the "I'm going to college" line you fed me in your Phag Phora (that's apparently b.s.), but.....I gotta know....how many hours do you spend on message boards a day? 12, 16,......20?!?

Give it a rest, Ms. Fake....

damn.

[QUOTE=J.P. Slovjanski]Gee I would have thought the "backwardness" in Russia might have something to do with the exploitation of its resources and economy after the collapse of Communism but what do I know, I've only studied the culture for somewhere around 6 years and lived there for several months.[/QUOTE]

Comparing apples and oranges.

I was speaking of the composition of the population, and you're talking about their technology.

LOL

You might however point to 1865 for some of the more profound changes to race relations in America.
Its true that there were profound changes in American race relations during Reconstruction. Yet it should be pointed out that egalitarians only comprised a small minority of the anti-slavery movement in the United States. Most of the supporters of the anti-slavery movement were racists, like Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to send blacks back to Africa. Take the Wilmot Proviso for instance. It was called "The White Man's Resolution" at the time. Furthermore, Reconstruction was decisively defeated and followed by the Jim Crow era. It took Adolf Hitler and Nazism to kill racialism in the West. Previously, it had been enjoying stunning success across the world.
Regardless of what the generals said, Presidents justified increasing world domination with the "we're the good guys" excuse.
Think critically for a second here. Hitler and fascism was the epitome of everything despised by the democratic West: dictatorship, tyranny, totalitarianism, mindless hatred, mass murderer etc. He was the anti-American par excellence. His ideology generally had no appeal whatsoever in Northwestern Europe. And he was also a racist. Thus racialism became associated with all these other ideas, and in the aftermath of the war, evil itself.
So IMHO you may have it backwards: the reason Hitler's "racism" (it wasn't) was demonized at all was the needs of the Americans, not the other way around.
I think you are getting this one wrong. Hitler discredited racialism itself by identifying racialism with all sorts of other ideas that simply did not appeal to Northwestern Europeans. Previously, racialism and eugenics had been quite popular in America and Northwestern Europe.

It came down to an internal contest between two polar ideologies, you fuckin' fathead: NS, and your side - communism. It's that simple: there was to be no middle ground.
When you are a white trash miscreant who drops out of high school in order to pump gas for Negroes, you don't get to take university level history classes. Demonstration:

"The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, sometimes called the Hitler-Stalin pact, was a non-aggression treaty between Germany and Russia, or more precisely between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. It was signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939, by the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop."

http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/index.php?title=Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Here is the Nazi savage Joseph Goebbels celebrating:

24 October 1939

"The Fuhrer has absolutely no thought of peace anymore. He would like to put England to the sword. He will not hear anything from the English about Bohemia and Moravia. They have no business interfering the East. And the solution of the Polish question is purely a matter between Germany and Russia. We have absolutely no cause to interfere on the side of Finland. We have no interest in the Baltic states. And Finland has been so unpleasant to us during the last year than any aid for her now is quite out of the question."

So no, actual it was your hero Hitler who cut a deal with Stalin, abandoning Eastern Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland to Communism in the process. He points out later that he had no interest in Baltic states anyway.

Here is the sick bastard again on Christianity. And how do the Nazis criticize Christianity? ROFL it is not in contact enough with the 'animal element' in life, a typical Nazi point of view.

28 December 1939 (Thursday)

"We come back to the religious question. The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."
No, race traitor - it was not Hitler's war only.
So I am the race traitor now? Hey! I am not the Nazi thug in this conversation who rationalizes the mass murder of millions of white people.
The jews had at least as much at stake in seeing the balance of power altered in Europe. They wanted the only bulwark against their red juggernaut removed.
This is what you Neo-Nazis always do. You make wild accusations about the Jews. And then when reasonable people ask to see your evidence, you smear them. That is because you are too fucking retarded to know how to support your case. Hey. Maybe if you spent more time in a library and less time in your trailer fucking your sister you would learn something!

"The AJC and B'nai B'rith opposed the boycott from the outset. AJC President Morris Waldman considered the boycott "future [and] possibly dangerous" as well as "a threat to the United States" and suggested that the AJC seek the intervention of President Roosevelt. Proskauer feared that boycott activities, like rallies and marches, would further imperil German Jews. He advocated a policy of "quiet diplomacy" and enjoyed the support of several German-Jewish leaders who feared the American action would prompt a wave of Nazi retaliation. With the United States suffering from a trade imbalance with Germany, the AJC also worried that a boycott would exacerbate the economic depression."

Marc Dollinger, Quest for Inclusion: Jews and Liberalism in America (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000), pp.46-48
And just take a guess as to who they considered their #1 impediment. Hey, if it took a fracticidal war with the loss of tens of millions of goyim, well, afterall....we are talking about the welfare of the Chosen Race here, are'nt we?
And why was there a fratricidal war in Europe? Does this ring a bell?

"He calmed down as if he had let off sufficient steam and quietly assured his guest that he had no desire to fight Britain and France. "I have no romantic aspiration," he said pleasantly, "no appetite for domination. Above all I seek nothing in the West. Neither today nor tommorrow," But he had to have a free hand in the East. "I must obtain a sufficient quantity of wheat for my country." He also needed a colony outside of Europe for timber. That was as far as his ambitions extended. "Once and for all," he said somberly, "it is necessary that your realize that I am ready to negotiate and discuss all these matters."

He reaffirmed that, given freedom in the East, he would happily conclude a pact with the British and guarantee all their possessions. This promise was obviously meant to be transmitted to London, as was the threat that followed. "Everything that I have in mind is directed against Russia; if the West is too stupid and blind to understand this then I will be forced to come to terms with the Russians, to crush the West and then after its defeat, turn with all my forces against the Soviet Union. I need the Ukraine so they can't starve us out as in the last war."

Toland, pp.536-537

(Want me to drag up all the unimpeachable quotes by prominent kikes throughout the 30's screaming for war against Germany at the top of their lungs? On both sides of the Atlantic?
Please do. Then explain to me what the Jewish Canadian editor of X magazine had to do with British or American foreign policy.

Some interesting quotes:

"Roosevelt issued his invitation to the conference on refugees, which he assumed would be largely attended by private sector organisations, from Warm Springs on March 25, 1938. Hitler spoke in Konigsberg that same night. Not without a perverted logic, he expressed the hope that (i.e., Roosevelt) who had "such a deep sympathy for these criminals will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy in practical aid." He claimed to be ready to evacuate the Jews from Germany on "luxury ships." As usual, Hitler had found the soft, flabby, underside of Western democratic moralism.

What Hitler's didn't grasp, or it so only partially, was that Roosevelt, in tactical terms, could be just as agile and almost as cynical as he could be himself. Roosevelt was sincerely horrified by Hitler's atrocities, even at this early stage. But he knew that Hitler was a mortal danger who could be defeated only when Western opinion was fully aware of the impossibility of appeasing or reasoning with him."

"On several occasions over the next three and one-half years, Hitler would think he had exposed Roosevelt as a hypocrite and embarrassed him. But he knew nothing of America, (apart from having devoured Karl May's stories of the Wild West). Hitler didn't realise that every time Roosevelt made a humane or constructive suggestion and Hitler ridiculed him, American public opinion firmly lined up behind the President.

But Roosevelt knew Germany, and he knew something of the mentality of the mad psychopathic demagogue. There were some partial historical precedents to work from. And his formidable political intuition, what Tom Corcoran called his "androgynous" insight, told him practically all he needed to know about Hitler from the start. Hitler compounded his misjudgment of Roosevelt by massively underestimating the military and industrial potential of the United States.

Hitler took Roosevelt for another witless Western idealist, more altruistic and stylish than Chamberlain, but just as weak and gullible, and set at the head of a more powerful but less distinguished country. He realised too late, if ever, that he was dealing with a leader who reciprocated his hatred, matched his cunning, and was implacably determined to be rid of him, an ambition that Hitler never particularly entertained toward Roosevelt. Roosevelt knew from the start, and before Hitler himself did, that Hitler was a menace to him. Roosevelt knew that the world could never be safe for democracy nor America unambiguously the world's most important country while Hitler reigned and Hitlerism flourished. In this, he antedated even Churchill, as the Hitler entry in Churchill's 1937 book, Great Contemporaries, makes clear, though by mid-1938 Churchill's and Roosevelt's views of Hitler were almost identical.

As in his manipulation of William Randolph Hearst, all the western progressive isolationists, of the Southern Segregationist Democrats, and of his own budget balancers, in American domestic politics, Roosevelt would protect and build his foreign policy consensus as he had deftly built a new domestic consensus for each phase of the evolving New Deal.

A man of Hitler's political cunning, if he paid more attention to American affairs, or even listened to his often astute ambassador in Washington, Hans Dieckhoff, would have had some idea of the mortal danger that Roosevelt's America, uniquely of all the countries in the world, posed to Nazi Germany. He would then, presumably, have behaved more cautiously. Hitler realised only when he was half way to military defeat and personal physical extinction what a threat to him Roosevelt was and always had been. Hitler's defective political judgment in an area where he was usually very astute was probably aggravated by his contempt for Roosevelt's illness and his preoccupation with the presence of Zionist Jews (i.e. Cohen and Frankfurter) in Roosevelt's entourage and "Negroes" on his domestic staff.

In general Roosevelt was influenced by no one, only by the impact of events upon his idea of the United States as the world's predestined nation, and of himself as recipient of both a divine and popular mandate to lead his country to the pinnacle of benign power, where he had always known it belonged. In addition to his being almost as objectively good in his purposes -- if not always in his methods -- as Hitler was evil in his, Roosevelt was an ambitious visionary and as artistic, if more scrupulous, as Machiavellian as Hitler. In the middle of 1938 these facts were known to, and probably suspected by, no one except the grand and enigmatic occupant of the White House."

Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), pp.450-452

Before the Nuremburg Laws and other policies even went into effect?) Your jew masters controlled German politics on all levels - from town/burg up to national.
Another unfounded spurious conspiracy theory.
Communists were rampant in teens and 20's Germany media, business, and govt - running the nation into the ground and helping to set up the traitorous loss of the Army in WWI.
Some more stupid Nazi propaganda. Communists rebellions were stomped all across Germany during the 1920s. This was pointed out to you hicks in the other thread by another poster. And furthermore, the economy was recovering in late 1932 anyway and support for communism would have imploded anyway.
Adolph Hitler, you scumbag, would not have been possible if not for your much-adored juden and their benevolent ways as witnessed by the German people themselves.
That's nonsense. Hitler didn't come to power by stirring up hatred of the Jews in Germany. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenberg because he moderated his rhetoric and shut up the lunatics in his party. The German conservatives thought they could control him and use his movement to form a popular front against Communism. The only reason his movement ever went anywhere is because of the Great Depression. It usually takes some sort of catastrophe like that for extremist losers to come to power, not just in Germany, but the world over.
was the absolute antithesis of the thoroughly jew-controlled communist party and its various front groups.
Which explains why his party cooperated with the 'thoroughly jew-controlled communist party' in the Reichstag, why he made an alliance with the Soviets, and why he engaged in extensive trade with the Soviet Union.
In 1930, NSDAP snagged scores of parliamentary seats from the half-steppin' Social Dems, setting up the political showdown that was to come with the reds.
And the only reason that happened, you idiot, is because the Communists had vowed not to cooperate with the Social Democrats. Instead, the far-left scum allied itself with the far-right rabble.
The German citizenry did'nt need AH or anyone else for that matter to tell them that the jewish financial elite and Zionist kike scum were selling out the fatherland to any and all would-be revolutionaries and other assorted egalitarian assholes who furthered jewish interests in even the slighest degree.
You are crazy. This place is beginning to smell too much like a garbage dump.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]28 December 1939 (Thursday)

"We come back to the religious question. The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."[/QUOTE]

This is why Hitler is commendable: unlike most conservatives, he understood that Christianity is the root of western liberalism.

[QUOTE=J.P. Slovjanski]By your logic, we should abandon the admiration of America and its founding fathers, because there are a lot of "well-documented" books that say that white settlers deliberately planned to massacre the the Indians and take their land.[/QUOTE]

A lot of wailing goes on about the Indians, but really, they're no peaches. They invited settlers in because they wanted allies in the internal struggles. The greatest of their civilizations had already peaked and were failing. While from an archeological perspective Hernan Cortez should be nailed to a cross, from a historical one, he didn't deprive us of much.

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

This is what you Neo-Nazis always do. You make wild accusations about the Jews. And then when reasonable people ask to see your evidence, you smear them. That is because you are too fucking retarded to know how to support your case. Hey. Maybe if you spent more time in a library and less time in your trailer fucking your sister you would learn something!
[/QUOTE]Aww.... is the wittoo jew-asskisser gettin' his panties up in a bunch? (I really get to ya', don't I, Fake? heh, heh).

And Mr.Cut & Paste is at it again I see. You could'nt debate a fuckin' thing if you were taken away from your precious pc and the net, could you, college boy? btw - I notice that's the one question you dodged - How many hours a day do you spend on message boards???

Also, the only "sister" I'm fuckin' in my "trailer", is yours. (Jeez, next time you send her out hookin' to drum up some bucks, tell her to glue her teeth in, will ya? Ouch!!)

Well, gots to gits ma po', ig'nint, white-trash ass down to Mickey D's and goes to work (you know - that four letter word totally alien to an Ivory Tower faggot like you with nothing else to do but sit at his pc all day long? Or, are you still gonna keep up the pretense that you're "going to college?") I'll fuck with ya' tonight when I get back, okay, Phora Queen?

Toodles -

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

"He [Hitler] calmed down as if he had let off sufficient steam and quietly assured his guest that he had no desire to fight Britain and France. "I have no romantic aspiration," he said pleasantly, "no appetite for domination. Above all I seek nothing in the West. Neither today nor tommorrow," But he had to have a free hand in the East. "I must obtain a sufficient quantity of wheat for my country." He also needed a colony outside of Europe for timber. That was as far as his ambitions extended. "Once and for all," he said somberly, "it is necessary that your realize that I am ready to negotiate and discuss all these matters."

He reaffirmed that, given freedom in the East, he would happily conclude a pact with the British and guarantee all their possessions. This promise was obviously meant to be transmitted to London, as was the threat that followed. "Everything that I have in mind is directed against Russia; if the West is too stupid and blind to understand this then I will be forced to come to terms with the Russians, to crush the West and then after its defeat, turn with all my forces against the Soviet Union. I need the Ukraine so they can't starve us out as in the last war."

Toland, pp.536-537[/QUOTE]
Is not Junior the exquisite hypocrite? Hundreds of hours were spent over at the Phora trying to make precisely Toland's point in characterization of Hitler's ambitions - as against Junior's insistence upon giving the impression (with weasel-wording) that Hitler wanted to literally "destroy" France and dominate the world, a la' the Hollywood History of the Second World War.

This makes three significant instances of Junior's convenient duplicity in argument - I suggest that we compile a list, contributions welcome:

1) "International Law" is a universal moral imperative (by Junior's obsessive analogy with rape, as of "Poland") when resisting the "Nazis" - or not - when other than the Germans are engaged in "Nazi"-like behavior (as in all prior Western colonialism and imperialism).

2) Language is exclusively metaphorical - or not - when discussing the responsibility of "Nazism" for the decline of racism.

3) Hitler is credited, as above, with sincerely affirming the limitation of his ambitions to the East - when he is to be charged with aggressive intentions - but Hitler becomes Junior's would-be world dominator, when this limitation becomes inconvenient for purposes of denouncing Hitler in Junior's court-historical account.

4)...[to be continued]

NN

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

Think critically for a second here. Hitler and fascism was the epitome of everything despised by the democratic West: dictatorship, tyranny, totalitarianism, mindless hatred, mass murderer etc. He was the anti-American par excellence. His ideology generally had no appeal whatsoever in Northwestern Europe. And he was also a racist. Thus racialism became associated with all these other ideas, and in the aftermath of the war, evil itself.[/QUOTE]
How quickly Junior's "scholarship" flees when convenient:

Pre-war, Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" and was praised publicly and privately by Western leaders.

Post-war, the loss of all legitimate war objectives by the allied powers to the world-conquering Soviets and the Communist Chinese, amidst their pretensions to a glorious victory, made them complicit with the Judeo-Communist world-wide regime in revising and reinventing the episode into a Morality Play for the Goyim, Weenie and Moron alike.

NN

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

In general Roosevelt was influenced by no one, only by the impact of events upon his idea of the United States as the world's predestined nation, and of himself as recipient of both a divine and popular mandate to lead his country to the pinnacle of benign power, where he had always known it belonged. In addition to his being almost as objectively good in his purposes -- if not always in his methods -- as Hitler was evil in his, Roosevelt was an ambitious visionary and as artistic, if more scrupulous, as Machiavellian as Hitler. In the middle of 1938 these facts were known to, and probably suspected by, no one except the grand and enigmatic occupant of the White House."

Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), pp.450-452.[/QUOTE]
A steaming pile posing as a ludicrous hagiography.

The Jew-manipulated comsymp cretin fatuously put his faith in Stalin and turned Hitler's ambition for such long-term accommodation amongst the Western powers as could be achieved into the Soviet threat of global nuclear annihilation.

Hitler was proved correct by events, and the bill for the Faustian Pact with the Soviet is yet to be paid.

NN

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]A steaming pile posing as a ludicrous hagiography.

The Jew-manipulated comsymp cretin fatuously put his faith in Stalin and turned Hitler's ambition for such long-term accommodation amongst the Western powers as could be achieved into the Soviet threat of global nuclear annihilation.

Hitler was proved correct by events, and the bill for the Faustian Pact with the Soviet is yet to be paid.

NN[/QUOTE]



Let us also not forget that, by aiding the Soviet Union, America aided global communism by default, since the Soviets used Moscow as a base to export communism WORLDWIDE, e.g. Cuba, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, not counting earlier communist takeovers like China, North Korea.

Would China be the powerful nuclear nation that it is today if FDR and his merry Jewish funsters had not rescued the Soviets from bankruptcy in the 1930s? I doubt it.




-----

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]The difference between FadeTheButcher and everyone else who seems to be posting in these threads is that FadeTheButcher actually takes the time to go check out these accusations for himself. I don't dismiss professional historians out of hand either simply because baseless ad hominem accusations of conspiracies are made against them.

So I say: show me your evidence. Lets see your evidence that the Jews 'are in control of all mass media'. I haven't seen this, although I have seen the accusation made again and again. Linder made a lot of bogus accusations about the British Press before WW2 which I had no problem refuting.[/QUOTE]
"Professional": one who is paid for what he does.

Let's have Junior list the names of the "professional historians" who are of independent means and whose livelihood thus does not depend upon official approval of their professional product.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evidence:

I personally witnessed the famous actor, Larry Hagman, casually explain, on a televised program, that "television is a Jewish medium".

The noted author, Truman Capote, complained of the "Jewish Mafia" having taken control of the literary scene, just before Junior was taught to wipe his own ass.

And more recently, Marlon Brando was forced to publicly grovel after having told the truth about Jews in the media.

[And on a personal note, I had Jewish history professors declare in class that orthodox interpretations of certain controversial events were not to be questioned in their classes, and I was "warned" against bringing up certain matters.]

[And I must confess that, upon recollection of my lifelong personal experience in observation of Jewish control/manipulation of the academy and media, I feel a rising contempt for the snot-nosed brat's attempts to deny that which is obvious to the adults and to refuse to learn therefrom.]

NN

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Here it comes. More proof that Hitler and Nazism are responsible for the decline of racialism:

"Given the New Deal was largely ineffective in forcing the nation to confront Jim Crow, it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was instead the emergence of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s that most set the stage for the real transformations. The Nazi menace forced at least some white Americans to begin to reexamine the racial inequalities in their midst. As historian John Higham wrote, notions of white supremacy began to wane in intellectual circles as "Hitler's demonstration of the fruits of racism inflicted a moral shock on every sensitive mind."

Klinker and Smith, The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America, p.137

"But American scholars adopted premises of racial equality most of all, the historian Carl Degler has concluded, as a result of "the impact of Nazi practices had on American scholarly thinking about race and biology in human affairs." Even a formerly ardent eugenicist and defender of Nazi science, Paul Popenoe, later said "the major factor" in the declining popular of his views "was undoubtedly Hitlerism." Degler contends this "impact can hardly be overestimated in explaining why during the 1930s and 1940s concepts and terms like 'heredity', 'biological differences', and 'instinct' dropped below the horizon in social science.

The impact, moreover, was increasingly not confined to academic discussions of race. "The terrifying popularity of Nazi racist doctrines," wrote Gary Gerstle, "forced American liberals to reconsider their 'hands-off' approach to problems of . . . racial hatred . . . Racism and prejudice had to be subjects of political commentary and targets of social action." As many white Americans gradually awakened to the ideological and military threats posed by Hitler, they realized that meeting these threats was especially difficult when America tolerated similar racist and undemocratic practices at home. As early as 1933, socialist leader Norman Thomas asked, "How can we either protest Hitlerism with good grace or hope to escape similar ills in America when we chronically carry out a more thoroughgoing discrimination aginst our colored fellow citizens than he has yet imposed upon the Jews?" Later, Atlanta Constitution editor Ralph McGill pointed out, "We can't do much pointing of the accusing finger at Adolf Hitler or ell Doochey for trying to give their people and exaggerated idea of the supremacy of their blood. We have the Klan."

As the need to confront fascism abroad meant facing up to Jim Crow at home, liberals increasingly made the connection between "Deutschland and Dixieland." In 1935, Senator Edward P. Costigan of Colorado, cosponser of an antilynching bill, told his colleagues that the legislation presented America with a "choice between Hitler and Mussolini on the one side, and Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Henry Grady, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the other."

Ibid., p.138[/QUOTE]


Most of this sounds like one, long opinion. Hardley proof. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]

Some more stupid Nazi propaganda. Communists rebellions were stomped all across Germany during the 1920s. This was pointed out to you hicks in the other thread by another poster. And furthermore, the economy was recovering in late 1932 anyway and support for communism would have imploded anyway.[/QUOTE]
This illustrates Junior's bot-like, propaganda-machine-like behavior.

He has previously been instructed, after making this very same allegation, that the German economy would have recollapsed late in the decade and the Communists would thus have triumphed, due to the concurrent failure of the American economy upon which the Germans had vitally depended in trade prior to Hitler.

Since Junior's prostitu...er, professional historian professors conveniently didn't tell him about the recollapse of the US economy under Judeo-Rooseveltian quasi-Marxist mismanagement (they like to ignore it or minimize it by distorting the graph of the decline under Saint Franklin), he has no response on point - but rather continues, dishonestly, to repeat his unqualified original allegation.

And this is Junior's basic debate technique: answer objections to false claims until his rationalizations are exhausted and he has no rational response, then make a final, supposedly dispositive response by merely repeating the original false assertion without qualification.

NN

During the Weimar ,the Communists deemed farmers to be property owners, and as such, their political enemies.farms were 'haunted' by groups of these people, and was robbed all thruout the bankrupt state.It was a revolutionary situation that Germany was on the verge of a civil war.

Later, as Hitler established the Storm Troops (S.A.), the Communist was quickly banished and order returned.

Hitler solved the German agricultural problems. The farmers also lost their savings in the great inflation. For the jews and other foreign speculators, dire state of affairs was an enormous profit-making opportunity. The great rakeoff by foreign speculators was retroactively curtailed, and they could do nothing with their ill-gotten Reichsmarks, because they were not convertible. This naturally stirred such people's hatred for National Socialist Germany.

by Friedrich Kurreck.

The first declaration of war by The Jewish World Congress came just 3 weeks after Hitler's democratic election. This sensational declaration was published by London's Daily Express on March 24, 1933, as major front-page news. Here are a few excerpts from this declaration of war: "...14 million jews, throughout the world, are united as one man in declaring war on German persecution of their brothers in faith... World jewry has decided not to remain silent in the face of a resurgent jew-baiting of the Middle Ages... The jewish prince of trade leaves his house of business, the banker his bank, the storekeeper his shop and the door-to-door, peddler his tray. (Editor's note: Were there no jewish laborers?) They unite in holy war against the jews' Hitlerian enemy."

As we know today, world jewry was not concerned for their "brothers in faith" in Germany, but only about Hitler's withdrawal from the gold standard by means of German productivity, and world jewry's consequent loss of their rackets in Germany. Two days after world jewry's declaration of war and agitation against Germany, The Zionist Union for Germany sent a telegram to the top jews in America dated March 26, 1933: "In regard to foreign misinformation about the German jews for the purpose of making anti-German propaganda, The Zionist Union for Germany declares: With great resolve we have informed the entire jewish world press via the Jewish Telegraph Agency, already on March 17th, of our declaration against all anti-German propaganda. We have publicly repeated our protest against all untruthful atrocity announcements and baseless sensationalism. We protest against every attempt to place jewish interests at the service of other countries or groups. The defence of jews' civil rights and their economic position cannot and must not be coupled with anti-German political actions."

I would like to add, that under Hitler, the 6 to 7 million unemployed under the "Weimar Republic" were, for the most part, re-employed within two and one half years. Within five years, full employment was reached. Hitler's enemies claim today that full employment was only achieved by rearmament. That is absolutely untrue. Armaments began to play a big economic role for the first time in 1939, as England and France forced war upon us. Here are the figures:

German Defence Industry Income from 1933 to 1939:

1933/34 RM 1.9 billion = 4% of the National Income
1934/35 RM 1.9 billion = 4% of the National Income
1935/36 RM 4 billion = 7% of the National Income
1936/37 RM 5.8 billion = 9% of the National Income
1937/38 RM 8.2 billion = 11% of the National Income
1938/39 RM 18.4 billion = 22% of the National Income

The above figures belie the Allied accusations that Germany armed her way out of the Great Depression. The economic situation of the so-called "Weimar Republic" began with the loss of World War I, which was waged by England against Germany in the form of encirclement and the unprecedented hunger blockade.

[QUOTE=J.P. Slovjanski]Look retard. I've already countered your Hitler quotes with contradictory Hitler quotes, and have already countered your claims with real facts that you were no previously aware of, as well as quotes from the political education manual of the Waffen SS, the Lehrplan. So nobody is impressed anymore. You're no different than an anti. There is a difference between criticism of the movement and your nonsense.

By your logic, we should abandon the admiration of America and its founding fathers, because there are a lot of "well-documented" books that say that white settlers deliberately planned to massacre the the Indians and take their land. Not to mention the fact that fanatical terrorists such as George Washington who attacked fellow White Englishmen.[/QUOTE]J.P. - This piece of shit is an anti's anti. Check this: he runs a - ahem! - "pro-White" forum frequented by a company of smug - yet completely misled - poofs, who actually believe in the official "Six Million" fairytale we've all come to know and pay massive penance to as The Holocau$t. He believes that jew vermin were purposely gassed en masse in the "extermination" camps of Poland. He believes the Einsatzgruppen lined up row after row of said vermin - young 'uns included, natch - and machinegunned the shit outta the whole lot of 'em. I mean, that's what establishment historians and Hymiewood made-for-televitz movies such as "The Holocaust" tell us....right? (Ya' know, Fake here just might be chump enough to fall for the ol' "lampshade" or, even better, "soap bar" stories as well. What ya' think?)

The faggot apparently swallows (ew!) everything he reads by the jew-dominated establishment press and publishing houses - hook, line, and sinker. These, are the sources he uses to back up his "arguments" (hey, I'm in a charitable mood with the scumbag tonight, so sue me). Then he gasps in utter astonishment and incredulity at our "nazi white trash" despicable selves when we point out to him that we don't buy the whole jew-sponsored Holohoax bullshit story. He's probably never even heard the term "revisionism" before, let alone attempted to actually read any of it. He's simply a 24 y.o. neocon punk who thinks he's got all the answers.

Saddest thing is that the bitch has somewhat of a small following at the Phag Phora - misleading (purposely?) some young, gullible gentile minds.....

Fucker.

Here ya' go, Fake. Just a few and I'm out the door. Post some more tonight - if you're still here, girlfriend:

"Hitler will have no war, but will be forced into it, not this year but later...."
- Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, 6/34

"Germany is the enemy of judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of judaism today is a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German man, woman, and child."
- Professor A. Kulischer, University of Heidelburg, 8/37

"Judea declares war on Germany."
- The London Daily Express, 3/34

"The German Revolution (communist) is the achievement of the jews; the liberal democratic parties have a great many jews as their leaders, and the jews play a predominant role in high government offices."
- The Jewish Tribune, 7/20

"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions, and by every single jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving once again to become a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany."
- Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, 1/34
(emphasis mine)

A bit of info on Franklin Delano Rosenvelt. Part jew surrounded by jews. And later a crippled half wit surrounded by his feminist wife. So don't go quoting Rosenvelt as some kind of authority on anything. I renounce the fderal government and do not recognize it's authority in any way shape of form. And I pay it no taxes either.

This highborn Episcopalian was a superb New York politician, which among other things meant that Roosevelt had come to know many Jews well. Jewish labor leaders, in particular, adored Governor Roosevelt. David Dubinsky of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union recalled how Roosevelt would yank industry executives into his office in Albany and knock heads to force agreements out of them. As governor, Roosevelt often called on one old friend in particular for help with tricky legal parts of the pioneer-ing social legislation he was planning for the state. The old friend was Harvard law professor Felix Frankfurter.

After March 1933 the bright young lawyers, many of them Jews, who Frankfurter had been sending to Albany were diverted instead to Washington. The new immigrants were called "Frankfurter's happy hot dogs." Among the first was Benjamin V. Cohen, who was called in for assistance in drafting emergency legislation to deal with the Wall Street crisis. Cohen, James McCauley Landis, and Thomas G. Corcoran-with regular telephone calls to Frankfurter in Cambridge-wrote the Securities Act of 1933 based on the idea that corporations were in fact pub-lic and therefore ought to be publicly regulated. The idea may have seemed somewhat radical in America, hut it was not so radical according to precepts of Jewish communality and to the Talmudic recognition that "property is funda-mentally a social object. . . subject to social control." The team of Corcoran and Cohen that traipsed in and out of the White House became famous; tagged the "gold dust twins," they lived in a much-publicized "little red house" on R Street in Georgetown. Corcoran was the suave and articulate front man, Cohen the withdrawn, bespectacled genius who would ponder late into the night considering how to fit what it was they were doing into the framework of the Constitution. They took on one project after an-other; after drafting the Securities and Exchange Act of '934, they worked on the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935, the Federal Communications Act, the bill establishing the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Wagner Act, the Minimum Wage Act. While Frankfurter set the tone and while the glib Corcoran did the talking at the White House and on Capitol Hill, Cohen did the work. While Colien would never admit that he wrote much of the most important New Deal legislation, in fact, said Joe Rauh, "Ben was the intellectual leader of this thing. Even Felix would call him for advice." Cohen, a remarkably self-effacing man, insisted otherwise, saying, "Corcoran was no slouch, you know."
More prestigious advice came from another Jew, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, who had been sitting on the Supreme Court since 1916. He transmitted counsel on how to make this or that constitutional, pressing his long-held philos-ophy that, the larger corporations became, the more dan-gerous their bigness was to the public weal.

Cohen, Frankfurter, and Brandeis were but the top echelon. Other Jews joined the New Deal apparatus. Abe Fortas was assigned to the new SEC; Mordecai Ezekiel was sent in as the Agriculture Department's economist; Henry Morgenthau, Jr., ("Henry the Morgue," to the ebullient F.D.R.) became Secretary of the Treasury; Charles Wyzanski went to the Labor Department; Isador Lubin took over the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in effect becoming F.D.R.'s economist; David Niles became the first of what is by now a line of special White House "point men" for handling minorities' affairs; the young Joe Rauh became part of it, after serving as a law clerk first to Justice Cardozo, then to Frankfurter after his appointment to the court; and there were Bernard Baruch, David Lilienthal, and Sam Rosenman (the man who coined the words for it all, "New Deal"), to name a few others. top of page

[QUOTE=Bragi]A bit of info on Franklin Delano Rosenvelt. Part jew surrounded by jews. And later a crippled half wit surrounded by his feminist wife. So don't go quoting Rosenvelt as some kind of authority on anything. I renounce the fderal government and do not recognize it's authority in any way shape of form. And I pay it no taxes either.

This highborn Episcopalian was a superb New York politician, which among other things meant that Roosevelt had come to know many Jews well. Jewish labor leaders, in particular, adored Governor Roosevelt. David Dubinsky of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union recalled how Roosevelt would yank industry executives into his office in Albany and knock heads to force agreements out of them. As governor, Roosevelt often called on one old friend in particular for help with tricky legal parts of the pioneer-ing social legislation he was planning for the state. The old friend was Harvard law professor Felix Frankfurter.

After March 1933 the bright young lawyers, many of them Jews, who Frankfurter had been sending to Albany were diverted instead to Washington. The new immigrants were called "Frankfurter's happy hot dogs." Among the first was Benjamin V. Cohen, who was called in for assistance in drafting emergency legislation to deal with the Wall Street crisis. Cohen, James McCauley Landis, and Thomas G. Corcoran-with regular telephone calls to Frankfurter in Cambridge-wrote the Securities Act of 1933 based on the idea that corporations were in fact pub-lic and therefore ought to be publicly regulated. The idea may have seemed somewhat radical in America, hut it was not so radical according to precepts of Jewish communality and to the Talmudic recognition that "property is funda-mentally a social object. . . subject to social control." The team of Corcoran and Cohen that traipsed in and out of the White House became famous; tagged the "gold dust twins," they lived in a much-publicized "little red house" on R Street in Georgetown. Corcoran was the suave and articulate front man, Cohen the withdrawn, bespectacled genius who would ponder late into the night considering how to fit what it was they were doing into the framework of the Constitution. They took on one project after an-other; after drafting the Securities and Exchange Act of '934, they worked on the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935, the Federal Communications Act, the bill establishing the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Wagner Act, the Minimum Wage Act. While Frankfurter set the tone and while the glib Corcoran did the talking at the White House and on Capitol Hill, Cohen did the work. While Colien would never admit that he wrote much of the most important New Deal legislation, in fact, said Joe Rauh, "Ben was the intellectual leader of this thing. Even Felix would call him for advice." Cohen, a remarkably self-effacing man, insisted otherwise, saying, "Corcoran was no slouch, you know."
More prestigious advice came from another Jew, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, who had been sitting on the Supreme Court since 1916. He transmitted counsel on how to make this or that constitutional, pressing his long-held philos-ophy that, the larger corporations became, the more dan-gerous their bigness was to the public weal.

Cohen, Frankfurter, and Brandeis were but the top echelon. Other Jews joined the New Deal apparatus. Abe Fortas was assigned to the new SEC; Mordecai Ezekiel was sent in as the Agriculture Department's economist; Henry Morgenthau, Jr., ("Henry the Morgue," to the ebullient F.D.R.) became Secretary of the Treasury; Charles Wyzanski went to the Labor Department; Isador Lubin took over the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in effect becoming F.D.R.'s economist; David Niles became the first of what is by now a line of special White House "point men" for handling minorities' affairs; the young Joe Rauh became part of it, after serving as a law clerk first to Justice Cardozo, then to Frankfurter after his appointment to the court; and there were Bernard Baruch, David Lilienthal, and Sam Rosenman (the man who coined the words for it all, "New Deal"), to name a few others. top of page[/QUOTE]



Great. URL?



-----

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Its true that there were profound changes in American race relations during Reconstruction. Yet it should be pointed out that egalitarians only comprised a small minority of the anti-slavery movement in the United States. Most of the supporters of the anti-slavery movement were racists, like Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to send blacks back to Africa. Take the Wilmot Proviso for instance. It was called "The White Man's Resolution" at the time. Furthermore, Reconstruction was decisively defeated and followed by the Jim Crow era. It took Adolf Hitler and Nazism to kill racialism in the West. Previously, it had been enjoying stunning success across the world.

Think critically for a second here. Hitler and fascism was the epitome of everything despised by the democratic West: dictatorship, tyranny, totalitarianism, mindless hatred, mass murderer etc. He was the anti-American par excellence. His ideology generally had no appeal whatsoever in Northwestern Europe. And he was also a racist. Thus racialism became associated with all these other ideas, and in the aftermath of the war, evil itself.

I think you are getting this one wrong. Hitler discredited racialism itself by identifying racialism with all sorts of other ideas that simply did not appeal to Northwestern Europeans. Previously, racialism and eugenics had been quite popular in America and Northwestern Europe.[/QUOTE]
Europe before Nazism and Hitler

Curious that all these people in different places and in different times just
rolled out of bed one day and decided they didn't want jews living amongst them anymore. I wonder why pagans for instance were not given the same treatment.

------------------------

Jewish Ouster Dates

A list of 46 European states and cities which expelled Jews once or more than
once from the 11th to the 19th centuries for economic exploitation, monopolizing or "sharp practice." Dates of expulsion are also given. Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins, editors, The Jewish Almanac, N.Y., Bantam Books, 1980; pp. 127-129.

Reportedly a fuller list of 77 areas from which Jews have been expelled appears in Paul E. Grosser and Edwin G. Halperin, Anti-Semitism: Causes and Effects.

Mainz 1012
France 1182
Upper Bavaria 1276
England 1290
France 1306
France 1322
Saxony 1349
Hungary 1360
Belgium 1370
Slovakia 1380
France 1394
Austria 1420
Lyons 1420
Cologne 1424
Mainz 1438
Augsburg 1439
Upper Bavaria 1442
Netherlands 1444
Brandenburg 1446
Mainz 1483
Warsaw 1483
Spain 1492

Italy 1492
Lithuania 1495
Portugal 1496
Naples 1496
Navarre 1498
Nuremberg 1498
Brandenburg 1510
Prussia 1510
Genoa 1515
Naples 1533
Italy 1540
Naples 1541
Prague 1541
Genoa 1550
Bavaria 1551
Prague 1557
Papal States 1569
Hungary 1582
Hamburg 1649
Vienna 1669
Slovakia 1744
Bohemia/Moravia 1744
Moscow 1891

http://www.heretical.org/miscella/irving1.html

[QUOTE=DR ANTICHRIST]Why would any White racist care if the Nazis killed millions of jews and make a stink over millions of the sworn enemies of our race being removed? One should be glad if anything.[/QUOTE]Because he's a half-steppin' neo-con, too chickenshit to rattle the cages of the jew, that's why. WN-lite if you will.

Fake has'nt posted in what, almost 48 hours now? And if you'll notice, his ever-faithful girlfriend, Erik D., quit posting at the same time. Maybe the two princes have decided they've given us enough how-to and what-for, by golly. Now they're probably back at the Phag Phora bragging to all their fellow pillow-biters about how they set us stupid "white trash nazis" right. Think they're nice and safe back home (think I'll go over there and fuck with both of 'em tonight.....) ;)