Sidhikurs0203

sidhikurs0203@lists.lysator.liu.se

473 discussions

The Jewish Led Alien Invasion
by Lawrence Auster 19 Feb '09

19 Feb '09

Give me your tired, your huddled masses, Yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. � Emma Lazarus The influx of Europeans into North America led the Indian populations to displacement and eventually to consignation on reservations. Similarly, relentless Jewish immigration into Palestine was against the interests of the Palestinian people, but it was necessary for the Jewish takeover of the region. It laid the foundation for the Zionist State.Any tribe, race or nation desiring to preserve its culture, group interests and sovereignty must preserve its predominant status in the geographic region in which it dwells. Most nations have had a fundamental understanding of that fact from the time of the earliest civilizations, and every modern nation has sought strict control of its borders and immigration. Most Americans view the Indian historical record of resistance to European colonization as morally justifiable, but in the skewed ethics of today, some find European-American attempts to preserve our unique genes and culture from non-European immigration - morally reprehensible. Nevertheless, despite pervasive propaganda promoting multiculturalism and the media-touted joys of diversity, opinion surveys in America show overwhelming opposition to unrestricted immigration. Similar public sentiment holds true in every European nation. It was not until the 1965 Immigration Act that the U.S. Congress ignored the majority�s wishes and began a policy that discriminated against potential European immigrants, and encouraged massive non-European immigration. From that time forward, the federal government also showed less willingness to enforce our immigration laws and police our borders. These policies resulted in a flood of non-White immigrants, legal and illegal. Immigration and higher non-White birthrates have transformed the American population from almost 90 percent European in the early 1960s to less than 70 percent at the end of the century. The U.S. Census Bureau has predicted that by the middle of the 21st century, well within the lifetime of many reading these words, European Americans will be a minority in the United States. We are already a minority in most of America�s major cities and will soon be outnumbered in California and Texas. Policies similar to those enacted in the U.S. have introduced large numbers of non-Europeans into Canada; Negroes into Britain; North Africans and Asians into France; Turks into Germany; and a potpourri of alien races into Scandinavia, Spain, and Italy. As I grew racially aware, it was certainly obvious to me that the new immigration policies of the United States and Europe would greatly damage Western societies. Only a short time after the change in immigration policy, crime problems escalated in all the affected nations. The quality of education suffered and social welfare problems increased. As this planned racial transformation accelerates, these ills will reach catastrophic proportions. What groups had anything to gain from this demographic Armageddon? The individual foreigners who could benefit from the economic opportunities afforded by the Western societies had little political or economic clout while outside the Western nations. As I looked into the American fight over immigration laws during the last 100 years, the driving force behind opening America�s borders became evident: It was organized Jewry, personified by the poet Emma Lazarus whose lines I quoted to begin the chapter. By the time I was a junior in high school, I had become convinced that massive non-European immigration poised the greatest short and long-term threat to the America that I loved. I saw that the Immigration Act of 1965, unless repealed, would eventually sound the death knell for my country. Much of the material I read pointed to a long history of organized Jewish efforts to radically change America�s immigration laws. I contacted Drew Smith, an elderly New Orleans attorney who had authored The Legacy of the Melting Pot, and who had already taught me a lot about the immigration issue.[869] Smith and I met one rainy day after school at the Citizens Council offices. He explained the history of American immigration law. After quoting the Lazarus lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty, he asked me, �Whose interest could have been served in having America flooded with �wretched refuse�?� He quickly answered his own question. �It was in the perceived interest of a cohesive people who use racial solidarity like a weapon, a weapon they want only for themselves. The efforts to change the American immigration law and ultimately displace the European majority has been led almost exclusively by Jews.� Smith explained that Emma Lazarus � like many other immigration activists � was a Jewish partisan who supported the creation of an exclusively Jewish Zionist state in Palestine, but who supported �diversity� for America. He pointed out to me how Jews such as Lazarus have even changed the modern meaning of the Statue of Liberty. The beautiful jade-colored colossus had no original connection with immigration and predated the Ellis Island immigration center. It was a gift from France to commemorate the American Revolution, not to honor the arrival of �wretched refuse� on America�s shores. It is instructive to note that this beautiful statue of European Womanhood faces not to Africa, Asia or South America, but the land where she was born, France and Europe itself. Emma Lazarus had been best known for her fulminations against Russia�s pogroms following the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881. The irony is rich: A Jewish supremacist dedicated to the creation of an elite Jewish State in Palestine was anxious to turn America into a refuge for the castoffs of the world. Drew Smith owned many books on the immigration issue, including some by Jews, in which he had underlined important passages. I borrowed them and passionately delved into them. Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress led (and still lead) the effort to liberalize American immigration and defeat restrictionist legislation. In 1921, 1924, and 1952, Congress passed legislation that simply attempted to maintain the racial status quo in America. Interestingly enough, even though Anglo Americans were in a vast majority of the American population as well as in Congress, they did not attempt to increase their own percentage of the American population, but simply sought to fairly maintain each group�s status quo. In the early legislative battles, Jews were the leading advocates of open immigration and vehemently opposed legislation that would maintain America as an ethnically European, Christian nation. In the House of Representatives, Adolph Sabath, Samuel Dickstein, and Emanuel Celler led the fight for unrestricted immigration, while in the Senate, Herbert Lehman and in later years Jacob Javits coordinated the effort. In the early struggles, Representative Leavitt clearly outlined the Jewish involvement in remarks before Congress. The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned�. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. (Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.)[870] Sociologist Edward A. Ross, in his influential 1914 book The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People, quotes the famous pro-immigration leader Israel Zangwill as suggesting that America is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests. Ross then bluntly writes about the Jewish influence. Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy: Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. Although theirs is but a seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission�s bill�. The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications.[871] In 1924 Congressman Knud Wefald pointed out the Communist ties of many of the Jewish immigrants and stated that many Jews have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals.� The leadership of our intellectual life in many of its phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no sympathy with our old-time American ideals � who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy through the disservices they render us. Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories [and] they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers. (Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.[872] The last important congressional legislation passed to protect the status quo of America was the Walter-McCarran act of 1952. Congressional opposition was led by the Jewish troika of Celler, Javits, and Lehman. Every major Jewish organization (as well as the Communist Party USA) also lined up to oppose it, including the American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, the ADL, National Council of Jewish Women, and dozens of others. During congressional debate, Francis Walter noted that the only civic organization that opposed the entire bill was the American Jewish Congress. Representative Celler noted that Walter �should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are opposing the bills.� (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)[873] When Jewish Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in joint hearings, he emphasized that in supporting breaking down U.S. immigration law, he represented �the entire body of religious and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left.�[874] It thrilled me to read the courageous remarks of Mississippi Congressman John Rankin during the debate. Today such truthful comments by any elected official would bring a torrent of abuse that few could withstand. They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation�. I am talking about the white Christian people of the North as well as the South. . . . Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and many other countries I could name. They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their Communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here. (Congressional Record, April 23, 1952.)[875] Finally, in 1965, the goal first advanced by Jewish organizations in the 1880s came to fruition when Congress passed the Immigration Act. It has resulted in immigration becoming 90 percent non-European. America went from an immigration program meant to be proportionately representative to all groups in the United States to one that discriminated against Europeans. As with earlier legislation, Jewish representatives and senators as well as powerful Jewish lobbying organizations led the assault. It succeeded because during the 41 years since 1924, Jewish power had increased dramatically in virtually all spheres of American life. In 1951 Senator Jacob Javits authored an article called �Let�s Open Our Gates.�[876] that called for massive unrestricted immigration. Javits and Representative Celler figured prominently in the passage of the bill in 1965. Nine years before passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, the American Jewish Congress initially proposed the essential elements of the bill and praised President Eisenhower for his �unequivocal opposition to the national quota system.� In a 1956 editorial they praised him for �courageously taking a stand in advance of even many advocates of liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.�[877] Jewish Motivation Behind Immigration It would have been stupid and counterproductive for the Jewish organizations that pushed for open borders to admit that they were motivated by interests that conflicted with those of non-Jewish Europeans. They promoted open immigration as �patriotic.� From the early days of the century, they made public pronouncements that multiculturalism and diversity would be beneficial to the United States, cleverly masking their strategic motivations.After the passage of the open immigration statutes of 1965, Jewish authors such as Naomi W. Cohen felt much safer in revealing some of the real Jewish reasons for promoting such policies. She wrote that, beginning with the persecutions in Russia in the 1880s through the Nazi occupation of Europe and into the Cold War tribulations in Eastern Europe, open immigration in Western nations served Jewish interests because �survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other lands.�[878] Cohen also wrote that a U.S. internationalist foreign policy serves Jewish interests because �an internationally minded America was likely to be more sensitive to the problems of foreign Jewries�[879] Perhaps even more important, Cohen intimated that Jews saw open immigration policies as breaking down the homogeneity and unity of America, creating a pluralistic society in which Jews could thrive.In his monumental book A History of Jews in America, Howard Sachar notes that pluralism supports �legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority�s host society.�[880] So, in effect, by breaking down the integrity and cohesion of America, Jews could increase their integrity and cohesion. Sachar goes on to explicitly show how pluralism intensifies Jewish solidarity: But Kallen�s influence extended really to all educated Jews: Legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority�s host society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage for an educated Jewish second generation, sustained its cohesiveness and its most tenacious communal endeavors through the rigors of the Depression and revived anti-Semitism, through the shock of Nazism and the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism in the post-World War II years swept through American Jewry with a climactic redemptionist fervor of its own.[881] Social psychologist Kevin MacDonald pointed out in A People That Shall Dwell Alone that major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations and that �ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups� and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles united in their opposition of Judaism.�[882] [883] In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today, Charles Silberman writes that American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse �gay rights� and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called �social issues.� [884] John Higham, in his book Send These to Me: Immigrants in Urban America, states in clear terms that Jewish-sponsored changes in immigration law were a defeat of the political and cultural representation of �the common people of the South and West.�[885] During the decades leading up to opening the borders in 1965, Jewish groups had piously stated that there should be no discrimination against any group in immigration and that such could only be good for America. But, Richard Arens, staff director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the Walter-McCarran Act, pointed out that the same Jewish forces which were the most avid promoters of open immigration, hypocritically opposed ethnic immigration they deemed unfavorable to their own interests. One of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is �discriminatory� and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel.[886] Organized Jewry not only wants to prevent Arab refugees from returning to their homes in Israel, they also oppose their coming to the United States. Do they see the displaced Palestinians as potential political opponents? Jewish groups clearly promote forms of multiculturalism that destroy Gentile cohesion, but not those which could threaten their own group power. So clearly, their dedication to multiculturalism is purely a strategic one; they want groups coming into the nation which can further pluralize American society and destroy its cohesion, but not those groups whom they see as political threat. Jewish-dominated political and media institutions have long promoted the demographic invasion and dissolution of America. While the Jewish media demonize as �racists� those who oppose the flood of non-White immigration into America, Canada and all the European nations, Israel�s immigration policy that excludes non-Jews is condoned. A million Palestinians fled their homes in the wake of the Israeli blitzkrieg takeover of Palestine. They cannot return to their ancestral homeland, and many are forced to live in refugee camps that are little more than concentration camps of want and squalor. A. M. Rosenthal is the long-time editor of perhaps the most influential newspaper in America, the Jewish-owned New York Times. A hawkish supporter of Israel, he only complains about the Zionist state when it is not Zionist enough for his taste. Yet, in a 1992 editorial Rosenthal feels obligated to criticize another country which desires to preserve its racial integrity and cultural heritage: They would do better to set a quota on immigrants and nurture a more pluralist society by adopting a formula for citizenship based on residence than blood ties. Equally distressing is Bonn�s failure to revise an outdated naturalization law rooted in ethnicity. Under the existing system, a Turkish guest worker who has lived in Germany for 30 years and speaks German fluently is denied the citizenship automatically granted a Russian-speaking immigrant who can prove German ancestry. [887] Rosenthal likens current German immigration policies to that of the Nazis. Yet, is Israeli immigration law so different? Not only Germany, but every White nation is a target of Rosenthal�s open immigration advocacy. Only Israel�s immigration policy � the most draconian of all � is immune from criticism. In America, Rosenthal identifies himself as the offspring of an illegal immigrant (his father) and even lauds the immigration of Haitians, many of whom are drug users and HIV-positive. Almost always now, when I read about Haitians who risk the seas to get to this country but wind up behind barbed wire, I think of an illegal immigrant I happen to know myself, and of his daughters and his son [himself]�. Even reluctantly recognizing some economic limitations, this country should have the moral elegance to accept neighbors who flee countries where their life is terror and hunger, and are run by murderous gangs�. If that were a qualification for entry into our Golden land, the Haitians should be welcomed with song, embrace and memories.[888] As a chronic reader of The New York Times, I have yet to read a Rosenthal editorial calling for the acceptance into Israel of the million or more Palestinians who are forced by Israel to live in the dire poverty of the refugee camps. Nor has Rosenthal ever called upon Jews to welcome Palestinian refugees into Israel with �song and embrace.� Rosenthal is not stupid, but he is profoundly hypocritical. He knows that making full citizens of all the Palestinians currently in Israel and all those in refugee camps outside its borders would quickly sweep away the Zionist political state in the same way that non-European immigration erodes the America of our forefathers. On the other side of the coin, Rosenthal knows that Israel could not have been created but for their emigration-invasion of Palestine. Looking at the historical record, should Palestinians have welcomed the Jewish immigrants with song and embrace? Rosenthal has no more regard for traditional Americans anymore than he has for the original Palestinian inhabitants of what is now called Israel. He has only one overwhelming concern: Jewish Supreamcism. Rosenthal is proud of what he and many other Jews are: aliens as much as the wetbacks with whom he identifies. He lives here, partaking of all the advantages of American citizenship, but he will not � and cannot � become a real American who places the interests of America above those of the Zionist agenda. As the Jews become more brazen in their exercise of power, some now boast of their role in dispossessing the European-Gentile American. Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B�nai B�rith) and writer for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote: It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed to eliminate such discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in effecting those changes.[889] Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America. Once that has happened, he looks forward to �constitutional constraints� (restriction of freedom of speech?): The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. [890] As Raab says, Zionist Jewish activists who have supported an exclusively Jewish-run national state have been nourishing massive nontraditional immigration into America, and they look forward to the time when the voting demographics of the United States reflect that transformation. I wonder if Zionist Israel Zangwill � who coined the term �melting pot� � envisioned his Jewish state as a melting pot of Jew and Arab; of Islam and Judaism. Given the ethnocentrism of Zionism, I rather doubt it. One American cartoonist wrote that the problem with a melting pot is that �The bottom always gets burned, and the scum rises to the top.� It is true that America has seen a melting of the different nationalities of Europe into a traditional American majority, but in spite of the pervasive race-mixing propaganda of the Jewish media, there has been no great melting of the White and Black, and only marginal melting of the Mestizo and Anglo elements. However, what these Zionists have not yet been able to accomplish through their advocacy of miscegenation, they are in the process of achieving through massive immigration and differential birthrates. Jews have also promoted, through �zero-population� advocates such as Paul Ehrlich, smaller families among the natural leaders of the American majority. Jewish promotion of the women�s liberation movement and abortion on demand has lowered the birthrate of America�s most productive and educated classes. Their blunt desire is the dissolution of the European race in the West by any means necessary. Continued massive non-European immigration satisfies these aims. In summary, massive non-White immigration has been one of the most effective weapons of organized Jewry in its cultural and ethnic war against the European American. We cannot win this life and death struggle until our people realize that we are in the midst of a war � and our side is suffering great losses. To lose this war would mean the destruction of our American culture, heritage, and freedoms. It would mean nothing less than the destruction of the very genes that have made possible all the social, cultural and spiritual creations that distinguish our civilization. Our voices are muted by mass media that are in the hands of our enemies. Too many of us are silently witnessing the genocide of our people. The time is late. We must speak out now and defend ourselves. We must fight for the continuation of the magnificent culture bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must take whatever action necessary to insure the future of our children and our generations to come. As is true for all living things, we must fight for our right to live. America is in many ways already occupied similarly to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Jewish Supremacists control the news, publishing and entertainment media, they control our elections and politicians, and now they are orchestrating a massive immigration into our land that will make us a politically and culturally impotent minority in the same way that the people of Palestine have suffered that fate. They seek to make our country into a tower of Babel in which they will occupy the top floors. Not only are Americans on the road to oblivion from immigration, but so are our brethren across Europe. Indeed, many nations are under the Jewish Supremacist drive toward globalization, and the destruction of any sort of ethnic or national pride and cohesiveness that could pose a threat to their hegemony. They seek to remake the world into an unremarkable mass of atomistic, deracinated individuals incapable of collective resistance. If we remain silent in this critical time in our people�s history, our people will be extinguished and silent forever. This maxim is not only true for Europeans and Americans, but for all the peoples of the Earth. References 869. Smith, Drew L. (1971). The Legacy Of The Melting Pot. North Quincy, Massachusetts. Christopher Publishing House 870. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,265-6,266. 871. Ross, E. A. (1914). The Old World And The New: The Significance Of Past And Present Immigration To The American People. New York: The Century Co. p.144.. 872. Congressional Record, April 12, 1924. 6,272. 873. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 2,285. 874. Joint Hearings Before The Subcommittees Of The Committees On The Judiciary, 82nd Congress, First Session, On S. 716, H. R. 2379, And H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951. 563 875. Congressional Record, April 23, 1952. 4,320. 876. Javits, J (1951) Let�s Open Our Gates New York Times Magazine July 8. p.8, 33. 877. Congress Weekly. (1956). Editorial of February 20. p.3 878. Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not Free To Desist: The American Jewish Committee 1906-1966. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society Of America. 879. Ibid. p.342. 880. Sachar, H. (1992). A History Of Jews In America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 881. Ibid. p.427. 882. MacDonald, K. B. (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As A Group Evolutionary Strategy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. 883. MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Separation And Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory Of Anti-Semitism. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. 884. Silberman, C. E. (1985). A Certain people: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit Books. 885. Higham , J. (1984). Send These To Me: Immigrants In Urban America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 886. Bennett, M. T. (1963). American Immigration Policies: A History. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press. p.181. 887. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9. 888. A. M. Rosenthal. (1992). New York Times. December 9. 889. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). July. 23. 890. Jewish Bulletin. (1993). Feb. 19. Source : http://www.davidduke.com/general/my-awakening-chapter-24-the-jewish-role-in… ------------------------------------- You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to Lawrence Auster's Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact : lawrence.auster(a)att.net -------------------------------------

1 0

Adolf Hitler - An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize
by Lawrence Auster 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Adolf Hitler - An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize By Alex S. Perry Jr. If anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was Adolf Hitler. Hitler did not want war. World War II was forced on Germany. Poland was encouraged to attack Germany by the promises of British Ambassador Sir Howard William Kennard and French Ambassador Leon Noel. They promised unconditionally that England and France would come to Poland�s immediate aid should she need it in case of war with Germany; therefore, no matter what Poland did to provoke Germany�s attack, Poland had an assurance from England and France. With this guarantee, Poland began acting ruthlessly. In addition, Kennard and Noel flattered Poland into thinking she was a great power. As the Chinese proverb says, �You can flatter a man to jump off the roof.� They sabotaged the efforts of those Polish leaders who wanted a policy of friendship with Germany.1 Poland delivered the first blow, and Hitler announced, �Since dawn today, we are shooting back,� when he spoke to the Reichstag on Sept ember 1, 1939. �Shooting back� is not the statement of an aggressor.2 When Hitler attacked, Donald Day said, Poland got exactly what she deserved. None of Poland�s immediate neighbors felt sorry for her. Poland had conducted a policy of terror. Ethnic Germans living on German soil that had been given to Poland at the end of World War I by the Versailles Peace Treaty had been so mistreated that 2 million left the area for Germany and elsewhere.3 They were driven from what had been their homeland long before World War I. Leon Degrelle, a young Belgian political leader in the 1930s, and who later joined Hitler�s hardest fighting unit, the Waffen SS, with over 400,000 other non-German European volunteers, says, �Of all the crimes of World War II, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that occurred in Poland just before the war. Thousands of German men, women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by press-enraged mobs. Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he rushed to the rescue.�4 Young German boys, when captured by the Poles, were castrated.5 William Joyce, nicknamed Lord Haw Haw by British propaganda, became a German citizen and took up for the German cause. He described the conditions of the Germans who were living in Poland because of the Versailles Treaty: German men and women were hunted like wild beasts through the streets of Bromberg. When they were caught, they were mutilated and torn to pieces by the Polish mob. . . . Every day the butchery increased. . . . [T]housands of Germans fled from their homes in Poland with nothing more than the clothes that they wore. Moreover, there was no doubt that the Polish army was making plans for the massacre of Danzig. . . . On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred, besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44 perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence against German official persons and property. These incidents took place either on the border or inside German territory. On the night of [August 31], a band of Polish desperadoes actually occupied the German Broad casting Station at Gleiwitz. Now it was clear that unless German troops marched at once, not a man, woman or child of German blood within the Polish territory could reasonably expect to avoid persecution and slaughter.6 Due to Poland�s atrocious acts against the German people, Hitler declared to British Ambassador Sir Nevile Henderson on August 25, 1939: �Poland�s provocations have become intolerable.�7 So Poland delivered the first blow, not Germany. The first blow was important to the United States in its war with Japan. It gave the United States the right and justification to do whatever was necessary to defeat the Japanese. But Germany did not have this right with Poland even after Poland had delivered the first blow. What fair-minded man, if he knew the true facts involved in the Polish situation, could blame Hitler for his retaliatory attack on Poland? Poland, if any nation ever did, deserved exactly what Germany gave her in return. But Hitler did not even want to do what he had to do. No sooner than Hitler began protecting the German people inside Poland, he was ready to stop all hostilities and begin peace negotiations. Prince Sturdza narrates: Only hours after the outbreak of hostilities between Germany and Poland, Mussolini, renewing his efforts for peace, proposed to all the interested powers an immediate suspension of hostilities and the immediate convocation of a conference between the great powers, in which Poland would also participate. Mussolini�s proposals were, without any delay, accepted by all governments concerned except Great Britain.8 Before war broke out Britain�s ambassador to Berlin, Sir Nevil Henderson, on August 30, 1939, said, in his final report of Germany�s proposed basis for negotiations, �Those proposals are in general not too unreasonable.� Even Pierre and Renee Gosset, in their rabid anti-German book Hitler, declare: �It was a proposal of extreme moderation. It was in fact an offer that no Allied statesman could have rejected in good faith.�9 As early as January 1941, Hitler was making extraordinary efforts to come to peace terms with England. He offered England generous terms. He offered, if Britain would assume an attitude of neutrality, to withdraw from all of France, to leave Holland and Belgium . . . to evacuate Norway and Den mark, and to support British and French industries by buying their products. His proposal had many other favorable points for England and Western Europe. But England�s officials did not want peace. They wanted war. Had they not celebrated their declaration of war by laughing, joking and drinking beer?10 Hitler allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk. He did not want to fight England. German Gen. Blumentritt states why Hitler allowed the British to escape: He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but �where there is planning there are shavings flying.� He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church�saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany�s position on the continent. The return of Germany�s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.11 Blumentritt�s statement is not the only notice about Hitler�s hope of peace and friendship with England. The renowned Swedish Explorer Sven Hedin observed Hitler�s confusion about Britain�s refusal to accept his peace offers: Hitler �felt he had repeatedly extended the hand of peace and friendship to the British, and each time they had blacked his eye in reply.� Hitler said, �The survival of the British Empire is in Germany�s interests too because if Britain loses India, we gain nothing thereby.�12 Harry Elmer Barnes says that Hitler lost the war because he was too good. While the theory of Hitler�s diabolism is generally accepted, there are very well informed persons who contend that he brought himself and Germany to ruin by being too soft, generous and honorable rather than too tough and ruthless. They point to the following considerations: he made a genuine and liberal peace offer to Britain on August 25, 1939; he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace, which later on cost him the war in North Africa; he failed to occupy all of France, take North Africa at once, and split the British Empire, he lost the Battle of Britain by failing to approve the savagery of military barbarism which played so large a role in the Allied victory; he delayed his attack on Russia and offered Molotov lavish concessions in November 1940 to keep peace between Germany and Russia; he lost the war with Russia by delaying the invasion in order to bail Mussolini out of his idiotic attack on Greece; and he declared war on the United States to keep his pledged word with Japan which had long before made it clear that it deserved no such consideration and loyalty from Hitler.13 David Irving�s descriptive account of Hitler�s love for Great Britain confirms what others had to say of Hitler�s desire to do no harm to England: For 20 years Hitler had dreamed of an alliance with Britain. Until far into the war he clung to the dream with all the vain, slightly ridiculous tenacity of a lover unwilling to admit that his feelings are unrequited. As Hitler told Maj. Quisling on August 18, 1940: �After making one proposal after another to the British on the reorganization of Europe, I now find myself forced against my will to fight this war against Britain. . . .� This was the dilemma confronting Hitler that summer. He hesitated to crush the British. Accordingly, he could not put his heart into the invasion planning. More fatefully, Hitler stayed the hand of the Luftwaffe and forbade any attack on London under pain of court-martial; the all-out saturation bombing of London, which his strategic advisers Raeder, Jodl, and Jeschonnek all urged upon him, was vetoed for one implausible reason after another. Though his staffs were instructed to examine every peripheral British position�Gibraltar, Egypt, the Suez Canal�for its vulnerability to attack, the heart of the British Empire was allowed to beat on, unmolested until it was too late. In these months an adjutant overheard Hitler heatedly shouting into a Chancellery telephone, �We have no business to be destroying Britain. We are quite incapable of taking up her legacy,� meaning the empire; and he spoke of the �devastating consequences� of the collapse of that empire.14 Hitler told Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, March 2, 1940, (1) that he had long been in favor of disarmament, but had received no encouragement from England and France; (2) he was in favor of international free trade; (3) Germany had no aim other than the return of the �German people to the territorial position that historically was rightly theirs�; (4) he had no desire to control non-German people and he had no intention to interfere with their independence; and (5) he wanted the return of the colonies that were stolen from Germany at Versailles.15 Churchill wanted war. Churchill was a war criminal. Churchill did not want peace. He wanted the war to continue as long as possible. In a January 1, 1944, letter to Stalin, Churchill said: �We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?�16 This is a confession even by Churchill that Hitler never did want war with England. Churchill in his July 1943 Guildhall speech stated quite plainly, �We entered the war of our free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.�17 When Churchill was leaving London to meet Roosevelt for a conference in Quebec late in the summer of 1943, a reporter asked if they were planning to offer peace terms to Germany. Churchill replied: �Heavens, no. They would accept immediately.�18 So the war went on from August 1943 until May 1945�for 22 more months just because peace terms were not offered. Churchill wanted England to be in war with Germany as early as 1936.19 Roosevelt was a war criminal. He wanted war and he wanted World War II to last as long as possible. @ @ @ Hitler and the German people did not want war, but Roosevelt wanted war. He worked for getting World War II started. He wanted war for political reasons. Jesse Jones, a member of Roosevelt�s cabinet for five years, states, �Regardless of his oft-repeated statement, �I hate war,� he was eager to get into the fighting since that would ensure a third term.�20 While the president repeated he did not want war and had no intent to send an expeditionary force to Europe, the militant secretaries of the Navy and of the War Department, Knox and Stimson, denounced the neutrality legislation in speeches and public declarations and advocated an American intervention in the Atlantic Battle. As members of the cabinet they could not do it without the president�s consent.21 When the press quoted Frank Knox as saying: �The only hope for peace for the United States would be the battering of Germany,� FDR did not rebuke him.22 Dr. Milton Eisenhower, Gen. Eisenhower�s brother, said, �President Roosevelt found it necessary to get the country into World War II to save his social policies.�23 Clare Booth-Luce shocked many people by saying at the Republican Party Convention in 1944 that Roosevelt �has lied us [the U.S.A.] into the war.� However, after this statement proved to be correct, the Roosevelt followers ceased to deny it, but praised it by claiming he was �forced to lie� to save his country and then England and �the world.�24 Rep. Hamilton Fish made the first speech in Congress on December 8, 1941, asking for a declaration of war against Japan. In his book, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, Fish says he is ashamed of that speech today and if he had known what Roosevelt had been doing to provoke Japan to attack, he would never have asked for a declaration of war.25 Fish said Roosevelt was the main firebrand to light the fuse of war both in Europe and the Pacific.26 Roosevelt�s real policy was revealed when the Germans were able to search through Polish documents and found in the archives in Warsaw �the dispatches of the Polish ambassadors in Washington and Paris which laid bare Roosevelt�s efforts to goad France and Britain into war. In November 1938, William C. Bullitt, his personal friend and ambassador in Paris, had indicated to the Poles that the president�s desire was for �Germany and Russia [to] come to blows, whereupon the democratic nations would attack Germany and force her into submission�; in the spring of 1939, Bullitt quoted Roosevelt as being determined �not to participate in the war from the start, but to be in at the finish.�27 Oliver Lyttelton, wartime British production manager, was undeniably correct when he declared, �America was never truly neutral. There is no doubt where her sympathies were, and it is a travesty on history ever to say that the United States was forced into the war. America provoked the Japanese to such an extent that they were forced to attack.�28 @ @ @ The Japanese were begging for peace before the atom bombs were dropped, and MacArthur recommended negotiation on the basis of the Japanese overtures. But Roosevelt brushed off this suggestion with the remark: �MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician.�29 These statements tell the whole history of World War II from the beginning to the end, The war was started to keep Roosevelt in office and it was allowed to go on much longer than necessary�it could have been over any day from 1943 on. At the same time American boys were battling to end World War II, leading American politicians were doing all they could for political reasons to continue the conflict. Hitler had only one goal with regard to his relations with other nations. That goal was peace. On May 17, 1933, Hitler addressed the Reichstag about his intentions: Germany will be perfectly ready to disband her entire military establishment and destroy the small amount of arms remaining to her, if the neighboring countries will do the same thing with equal thoroughness. Germany is entirely ready to renounce aggressive weapons of every sort if the armed nations, on their part, will destroy their aggressive weapons within a specified period, and if their use is forbidden by an international convention. Germany is at all times prepared to renounce offensive weapons if the rest of the world does the same. Germany is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression because she does not think of attacking anybody but only of acquiring security.30 None of the �peace loving democracies� paid any attention to Hitler�s offer. The only reason why King Edward was not allowed to remain on the British throne was because he let it be known that as long as he was the king, England would not go to war with Germany. Hitler expressed himself about the results Germany would gain from war: �A European war could be the end of all our efforts even if we should win, because the disappearance of the British Empire would be a misfortune which could not be made up again� (Michael McLaughlin, For Those Who Cannot Speak, page 10). Based on the above, Hitler should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously to set things straight. He was not the cause of World War II and he did not want any war. He was a man of peace and he worked for peace in every way he could. ENDNOTES: 1 Day, Donald, Onward Christian Soldiers, 68-9. Donald Day was The Chicago Tribune�s only correspondent in northeastern Europe before and during World War II. 2 McLaughlin, Michael, For Those Who Cannot Speak, 9. 3Onward Christian Soldiers, 55. 4The Journal of Historical Review, winter 1982, 454-5. 5 Fish, Hamilton, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, 86. 6Twilight Over England, 125-6. 7The Suicide of Europe (memoirs of Prince Michel Sturdza, former foreign minister of Romania), 1. 8Ibid., 145. 9Ibid., 11. 10 McLaughlin,op cit., 10. 11 Barnes, Harry Elmer, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 162. The last sentence in the paragraph just quoted should put an end to any claim that Hitler wanted to capture the world. 12 Irving, David, Hitler�s War, paperback edition, Avon History, 236. 13The Barnes Trilogy, section �Revisionism and Brainwashing,� 33. 14 Irving, op. cit., 236. 15 Tansill, Charles Callan, Back Door to War, 577. 16 Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3. 17 Martin, James J., The Saga of Hog Island, 42. 18 Martin, James J., Revisionist Viewpoints, 75. 19 Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend, 350. 20 Jones, Jesse H., with Edward Angly, Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years with the RFC: 1932-1945, New York: the Macmillan Company, 1951, 260. 21 Fehrenbach, T.F., F.D.R.�s Undeclared War 1939 to 1941, pages 135, 189. 22 Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3. 23 Grieb, Conrad, American Manifest Destiny and the Holocaust, 124-5. 24 Walendy, op. cit., 3 25Ibid., 144. 26Ibid., 149. 27 Irving, op. cit., 235. 28The Saga of Hog Island, op. cit., 63. 29 Chamberlin, William Henry, America�s Second Crusade, 219. 30 Neilson, Francis, The Churchill Legend, 278. ------------------------ You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster Newletter. If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284 Thanks, Lawrence Auster, 238 W 101 St Apt. 3B New York, NY 10025 Contact: lawrence.auster(a)att.net ------------------------

1 0

Keanu Reeves' Night Out in Hollywood
by Rob Booker 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

our best proposal http://www.jenuzdyhfo.net/ Prof. Rob Booker tel: +1(667)2413975 Booker(a)babyrasta.com Huxtables Kitchen Inc., 240 Powers Street

1 0

Doctors offer holiday hints for allergy-prone
by Nathan Chmilar 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

prices http://www.jenuzdyhfo.net/ Yours, Nathan Chmilar +1(453)6108809 Chmilar(a)calybreboatworks.com Rothtec Engraving Corp., 141 Stahlman Ave.

1 0

Feel like a teenager again!
by Jerry Abs 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

this is the best discount we can offer http://www.netpunza.com/ cmo, Jerry Abs +1 (667) 2413975 Abs(a)bjzysj.com Grapevine, 1975 Concourse Dr.

1 0

Magic things happen at weekend!
by Tobi Flyer 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

discounts here http://www.netpunza.com/ marketing, Tobi Flyer tel +1 667 2413975 Flyer(a)buckybar.com Witmer Computerized Accounting Consultin, 555 Seymour

1 0

I Will Not Zap The Mosquito
by Lorena Elizarraras 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

our price list http://www.jenuzdyhfo.net/ Mr. Lorena Elizarraras +1(453)6108809 Elizarraras(a)bermudagold.org Carter Motor, 117 Colmslie Road

1 0

Improve your ability!
by Julia Szukalski 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

price-list http://www.jenuzdyhfo.net/ Dr Julia Szukalski tel: +17205892341 Szukalski(a)bikersweek.com MMMuffins Canada Corporation, 2040 NW 67th Plc.

1 0

'American Idol' Jordin Sparks' New CD
by Silvia Silvia 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

what we can do for you http://www.jenuzdyhfo.net/ marketing, Silvia Silvia tel: +17205892341 Silvia(a)bobago.com Transamerica Life Canada, #300 - 224 West Esplenade

1 0

Donny and Marie Performing Together Again
by Matt Cer 06 Feb '09

06 Feb '09

price-list http://www.jenuzdyhfo.net/ marketing, Matt Cer tel: +17205892341 Cer(a)bookingbooth.com Power Building System Inc., PO Box 95104, 13 Scott Street

1 0

← Newer
1
...
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...
48
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Sidhikurs0203