Discussion:
German POWS were brought the USA during WWII
(too old to reply)
ADOLF LIBERAL
2005-06-15 13:25:54 UTC
Permalink
German POWS were brought the USA during WWII
at a rate of 10,000 per week

10,000 per week! Until there were a few 100 thousand
of them. They were transported in the HOLDS of ships
with NO BATHROOMS, No Beds, and little food.

And then they were sent to the camps.

Did you know that we had 500 POW Camps right here in
the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.

Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..

THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people
blazing laser
2005-06-15 17:02:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 06:25:54 -0700, ADOLF LIBERAL
Post by ADOLF LIBERAL
German POWS were brought the USA during WWII
at a rate of 10,000 per week
10,000 per week! Until there were a few 100 thousand
of them. They were transported in the HOLDS of ships
with NO BATHROOMS, No Beds, and little food.
And then they were sent to the camps.
Did you know that we had 500 POW Camps right here in
the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.
Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..
THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people
I heard a long detailed story about this on NPR.

Yes they were transported in the HOLDS of ships. That's where the men
live who work on ships, in the HOLDS. Yes there were beds and food.
I'd say they were about as comfortable on the ships as our own
sailors. Do you expect us to believe we transported prisoners across
an ocean in ships with no bathrooms? What kind of idiots do you take
us for?

We treated the German prisoners well, in keeping with the Geneva
convention--as we would expect our prisoners to be treated by Germany
(and in most cases they were). We kept them in camps here in the US
(where else would we keep them?) and I understand there were very few
escape attempts. It's easier to get across 100 mi. or so of European
territory to a friendly country than it is to get around in the US,
especially if you don't speak good English. We let them organize
sports teams, orchestras, plant gardens, work on handicrafts, etc.
etc. The crafts and veggies were sold locally to allow the prisoners
to make a little money, and the orchestras gave concerts for the local
townspeople.

Yes, high ranking officers were treated better than footsoldiers. We
do that for our own troops too. They treated our officers better
also. It's just the way things are done. In this case we expected
the captured officers to keep their men organized and disciplined,
which apparently they did.

The story ended by saying that many ex-German prisoners liked the US
so much they immigrated to the US after the war.

As for killing 6 million people, I think most of us realized that most
of these guys were not Nazis, they were just young men caught up in a
war over which they had no control. Just as most American troops in
Iraq really have a very scant understanding of the politics and
deceptions involved in that war. Once you're on the battlefield with
a rifle in your hand you're fighting for your life. Perhaps we
understood even at the time that in a few years these guys would be
our allies and trading partners.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-15 17:03:17 UTC
Permalink
German POWS were brought the USA during WWII
at a rate of 10,000 per week

10,000 per week! Until there were a few 100 thousand
of them. They were transported in the HOLDS of ships
with NO BATHROOMS, No Beds, and little food.

And then they were sent to the camps.

Did you know that we had 500 POW Camps right here in
the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.

Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..

THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people>>>

Because the German's weren't stupid enough to attack American soil.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-15 17:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Did you know that we had 500 POW>>>
As a matter of fact, I do. My mother worked in one of them in New
Jersey.
Camps right here in the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.

Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..

THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people.>>>>>

And why did we do that? Because they were POW, not spies. Any German
who had been caught spying on US soil, or trying to blow up an oil tank
in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.

Terrorists do not have any rights.
E.E.Bud Keith
2005-06-15 17:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Did you know that we had 500 POW>>>
As a matter of fact, I do. My mother worked in one of them in New
Jersey.
Camps right here in the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.
Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..
THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people.>>>>>
And why did we do that? Because they were POW, not spies. Any German
who had been caught spying on US soil, or trying to blow up an oil tank
in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
Terrorists do not have any rights.
Did you know that the Germans held prisoners of war according to the rules
of warfare and the Geneva convention. While they may not have been treated
as well as the germans were, they were treated humainly.
On the other hand we hold prisoners at gitmo who are not in the arny of any
nation. Who kill anyone anywhere without hesitation and belong to no
organization demanding prisoners be treated humainly.
No one advocates that these prisoners be treated in the same manner as they
treat prisoners. However, they are killers from whom we are trying to obtain
information and the slight bending of any rules to save American lives is
justified. Liberals who which to treat these madmen killers as if they were
domisticated house pets are just plain nuts.
As a matter of fact their is little intrest among these groups to help
prisoners. There object is to do anything and everything to bring down the
USA with their accusations.
ATOMIC PUG BLASTER
2005-06-15 19:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by E.E.Bud Keith
Post by b***@aol.com
Did you know that we had 500 POW>>>
As a matter of fact, I do. My mother worked in one of them in New
Jersey.
Camps right here in the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.
Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..
THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people.>>>>>
And why did we do that? Because they were POW, not spies. Any German
who had been caught spying on US soil, or trying to blow up an oil tank
in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
Terrorists do not have any rights.
Did you know that the Germans held prisoners of war according to the rules
of warfare and the Geneva convention.
You of course haven't spoken to the witnesses of the Russians, Poles, Jews
who Hitler worked to Death.
a***@no-spam-panix.com
2005-06-15 19:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ADOLF LIBERAL
Did you know that we had 500 POW>>>
Camps right here in the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.
Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..
THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people.>>>>>
bvallely> And why did we do that? Because they were POW, not spies. Any German
bvallely> who had been caught spying on US soil, or trying to blow up an oil tank
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.

No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.

They have the same rights other humans have.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:11 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:14 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:14 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:13 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:14 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:15 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:14 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:16 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:15 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:14 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:16 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:15 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:15 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
Eris
2005-06-17 00:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>
A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.
bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
Bill what does this crap mean?

Figli,
Non cercate le cose del mondo. Siate forti nell'amore, rifugiatevi
nell'armatura della fede ed insossate vestiti di speranza.
In queste cose avrete la soluzione tramite santo consiglio. Cercate
tesori
in Paradiso dove il tempo non può intaccarli.
Lasciate il desiderio del mondo poichè in questo si rifugiano tutte le
cose
di cui si nutre il nemico, eppure tenete cura di ciò che vi sta a
cuore così
che tramite benedizione sia a testimonianza del mondo. Il nostro cibo
è cibo
di angeli e di tale vorrei che vi nutriste continuamente. Rinnovatevi
nel
perdono e nell'amore ed attaccatevi solo a cose date e guadagnate con
tali
doni. Fate tutto quello che le vostre mani possono fare perchè piccole
mani
fanno grandi opere in terra ed in cielo. Date e riceverete, cercate e
troverete, amate e guarirete dalle vostre piaghe. Amiamo la Regina del
Mondo
con tutto il cuore ma soprattuto amiamo se solo ciò possiamo.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-17 22:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
Bill what does this crap mean? >>>

That terrorists do not have any legal rights whatsoever.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:17 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 05:27:15 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>

A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
Alric Knebel
2005-06-16 06:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
then they were (usually) shot.>>>
A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
means.
bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.
That little example of your wit and wisdom was posted FIFTEEN TIMES.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
a***@no-spam-panix.com
2005-06-16 12:52:28 UTC
Permalink
bvallely> in Elizibeth, NJ, would be tortured and shot.
bvallely> No, they were tried in military court. If found guilty,
bvallely> then they were (usually) shot.>>>

bvallely> A trial is a nicity if we're feeling generous. Not necessary, by any
bvallely> means.

I disagree. You see, I do not think being like Saddam and
other tyrants is a good idea.

bvallely> Terrorists do not have any rights.
They have the same rights other humans have. >>>
bvallely> No, they do not. Nor should they. Frankly, I think they should be
bvallely> harvested, without painkillers, for organ transplants.

Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
tyrants is a good idea. Not to mention you are assuming
your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other
criminals, they will have forfeited most of their rights.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
b***@aol.com
2005-06-16 19:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
tyrants is a good idea>>>>

America is nothing at all like Saddam. I'm not talking about throwing
women and children into wood chippers to seize control.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Not to mention you are assuming your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other criminals,
they will have forfeited most of their rights. >>>>

Bill Clinton tried treating terrorists like criminals. He arrested the
guys who blew up the World Trade Center. Have them lawyers and a trial
and a clean bed and fresh food. The terrorists saw this as weakness,
and killed three thousand Americans. Just how many people have to die
before you have a glimmer of reaity poke through your dense head?
Alric Knebel
2005-06-16 21:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
tyrants is a good idea>>>>
America is nothing at all like Saddam. I'm not talking about throwing
women and children into wood chippers to seize control.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Not to mention you are assuming your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other criminals,
they will have forfeited most of their rights. >>>>
Bill Clinton tried treating terrorists like criminals. He arrested the
guys who blew up the World Trade Center. Have them lawyers and a trial
and a clean bed and fresh food. The terrorists saw this as weakness,
and killed three thousand Americans. Just how many people have to die
before you have a glimmer of reaity poke through your dense head?
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms. That they killed
three thousand people was an accident. They had no idea that the
buildings were going to collapse. They were looking at the whole stunt
as some form of theater, as a symbolic act, that they had struck a
symbol of American economic imperialism. It was the BIGNESS of it that
was appealing to them. That the buildings collapsed surprised everyone,
even the terrorists. If subsequent terrorist acts are seen by you as a
consequence of a previous response, how do you account for terrorist
attacks continuing throughout the world now, with further attacks
planned for here (or so the claim goes)? What you do to terrorists is
not going to change their attitudes, will neither encourage or
discourage them. Dire warnings were passed to Bush's Administration,
but they were too busy planning a war in Iraq for their own reasons to
pay attention to the real problems. And let's not forget that terrorist
attacks occurred during the previous Republican administrations, and the
first attack on the WTC took place just months after Clinton took
office. You didn't see Democrats blaming THEM for it, did you? No, you
didn't.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
b***@aol.com
2005-06-17 22:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three
thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>

Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident. They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse. They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater, as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of American economic imperialism.>>>
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?

Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
entropy
2005-06-17 23:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again?

And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.

He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).

Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident. They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse. They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater, as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of American economic imperialism.>>>
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers.
Post by Alric Knebel
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Alric Knebel
2005-06-17 23:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again?
And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.
He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).
Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident. They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse. They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater, as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of American economic imperialism.>>>
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers.
Post by Alric Knebel
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head.
How was I in error if you just agreed with me?
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
entropy
2005-06-17 23:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again?
And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.
He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).
Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident. They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse. They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater, as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of American economic imperialism.>>>
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers.
Post by Alric Knebel
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head.
How was I in error if you just agreed with me?
Because they intended to kill people as many people as possible. You
said 3,000 dead was an accident. The towers falling was the
accident, not the deaths. If the attacks had come around 11a instead
of around 9a, when the buildings would have been at peak daily
capacity, 3,000 could have pretty easily been killed at impact alone,
with more killed on collapse.

The WTC had a carrying capacity of at least 50,000 people, most of
them in the two towers.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Alric Knebel
2005-06-18 00:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again?
And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.
He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).
Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident.
They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse.
They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater,
as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of
American economic imperialism.>>>
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers.
Post by Alric Knebel
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head.
How was I in error if you just agreed with me?
Because they intended to kill as many people as possible. You
said 3,000 dead was an accident. The towers falling was the
accident, not the deaths. If the attacks had come around 11a instead
of around 9a, when the buildings would have been at peak daily
capacity, 3,000 could have pretty easily been killed at impact alone,
with more killed on collapse.
The WTC had a carrying capacity of at least 50,000 people, most of
them in the two towers.
The deaths occurred because of the towers falling. The towers falling
was an accident, yes, that's what I said. The weren't really interested
in the number dead, but, yes, the more the merrier. The main thing was
the act itself, that the building was selected not because of the number
of people it housed, but because of what it stood for. If they were
interested in the numbers dead, they could have crashed the plane
somewhere else, or, if it's as you said about the time, they would have
hijacked the planes later. If the towers hadn't fallen, only a few
hundred people would have been killed. But it would have still made
fantastic television. The terrorists were after good theater. When the
towers fell, they must have been elated.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
entropy
2005-06-18 01:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again?
And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.
He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).
Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident.
They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse.
They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater,
as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of
American economic imperialism.>>>
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers.
Post by Alric Knebel
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head.
How was I in error if you just agreed with me?
Because they intended to kill as many people as possible. You
said 3,000 dead was an accident. The towers falling was the
accident, not the deaths. If the attacks had come around 11a instead
of around 9a, when the buildings would have been at peak daily
capacity, 3,000 could have pretty easily been killed at impact alone,
with more killed on collapse.
The WTC had a carrying capacity of at least 50,000 people, most of
them in the two towers.
The deaths occurred because of the towers falling.
Listen, friend: I was there. The initial impact slaughtered hundreds
of people sitting at their desks, right off the bat. Then there were
the people we watched explode on the sidewalk after jumping to their
deaths because they were trapped by the fires burning below them.
They jumped rather than burn to death. We stepped over their broken
pieces and in their blood. This was before the towers fell.

So don't tell me that "the" deaths occurred because of the towers
falling, because if you say that you're talking out of your ass.

And I'm generally sympathetic to your position. But get your facts
straight, or shut up.
Post by Alric Knebel
The towers falling
was an accident, yes, that's what I said. The weren't really interested
in the number dead, but, yes, the more the merrier. The main thing was
the act itself, that the building was selected not because of the number
of people it housed, but because of what it stood for. If they were
interested in the numbers dead, they could have crashed the plane
somewhere else, or, if it's as you said about the time, they would have
hijacked the planes later. If the towers hadn't fallen, only a few
hundred people would have been killed. But it would have still made
fantastic television. The terrorists were after good theater. When the
towers fell, they must have been elated.
Them and the Chinese leadership, who repeatedly replayed news video
of the planes crashing into the buildings and the towers falling for
days afterwards. Positively gleeful, Chinese president Jiang Zemin
was reported to be. An arrogant nation was getting its comeuppance.

I also notice you're mediating your position a little, and saying
that only a few hundred people would have been killed if the towers
hadn't fallen.

That's far from certain. A lot of people were trapped on the upper
floors above the fire, and they would have remained stuck there as
the fires burned. It would have taken days to get the fires out,
with innumerable loss of life. It's obvious that a big chunk of the
3,000 came from those floors. So we might be talking about 2,000
instead of 3,000 -- but, believe me, it's offensive to talk about
those who died that day in this way.

Yes, your points about the choice of target and what it represented
are all correct WRT what has been gleaned from OBL comments about the
attack. But the intention to kill as many people as possible was
there, and to refer to the ultimate loss of life as an accident is to
place that loss in an inappropriate context.

If you want to continue to argue this, I'll give you the last word.
I don't see how you can defend your position, but this is Usenet and
the last thing anybody ever seems to do around here is concede an
error.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Alric Knebel
2005-06-18 01:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again?
And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.
He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).
Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident.
They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse.
They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater,
as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of
American economic imperialism.>>>
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers.
Post by Alric Knebel
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head.
How was I in error if you just agreed with me?
Because they intended to kill as many people as possible. You
said 3,000 dead was an accident. The towers falling was the
accident, not the deaths. If the attacks had come around 11a instead
of around 9a, when the buildings would have been at peak daily
capacity, 3,000 could have pretty easily been killed at impact alone,
with more killed on collapse.
The WTC had a carrying capacity of at least 50,000 people, most of
them in the two towers.
The deaths occurred because of the towers falling.
Listen, friend: I was there. The initial impact slaughtered hundreds
of people sitting at their desks, right off the bat. Then there were
the people we watched explode on the sidewalk after jumping to their
deaths because they were trapped by the fires burning below them.
They jumped rather than burn to death. We stepped over their broken
pieces and in their blood. This was before the towers fell.
So don't tell me that "the" deaths occurred because of the towers
falling, because if you say that you're talking out of your ass.
I never said that. What's wrong with you. I know people died from the
impact. Hell, that's obvious. I said THREE THOUSAND died because of
the collapse of the building. Many more would have been rescued had
that not happened. Hell, you have to remember, firemen and policeman in
the rescue effort are counted among the casualties. How many of them?
Post by entropy
And I'm generally sympathetic to your position. But get your facts
straight, or shut up.
Post by Alric Knebel
The towers falling
was an accident, yes, that's what I said. The weren't really interested
in the number dead, but, yes, the more the merrier. The main thing was
the act itself, that the building was selected not because of the number
of people it housed, but because of what it stood for. If they were
interested in the numbers dead, they could have crashed the plane
somewhere else, or, if it's as you said about the time, they would have
hijacked the planes later. If the towers hadn't fallen, only a few
hundred people would have been killed. But it would have still made
fantastic television. The terrorists were after good theater. When the
towers fell, they must have been elated.
Them and the Chinese leadership, who repeatedly replayed news video
of the planes crashing into the buildings and the towers falling for
days afterwards. Positively gleeful, Chinese president Jiang Zemin
was reported to be. An arrogant nation was getting its comeuppance.
I also notice you're mediating your position a little, and saying
that only a few hundred people would have been killed if the towers
hadn't fallen.
No, not at all. All I ever said was that the number of casualties and
the fact that the building collapsed was a surprise to even the
terrorists. No one foresaw that. Did you think I meant that NO people
would have been killed?
Post by entropy
That's far from certain. A lot of people were trapped on the upper
floors above the fire, and they would have remained stuck there as
the fires burned. It would have taken days to get the fires out,
with innumerable loss of life. It's obvious that a big chunk of the
3,000 came from those floors. So we might be talking about 2,000
instead of 3,000 -- but, believe me, it's offensive to talk about
those who died that day in this way.
No, it's not. I'm not talking realities as a terrorist act. You have
to look at how this topic originated. I'm asking how the country would
have reacted had that building not collapsed. Look at Oklahoma City.
The whole front of that building came down, and Americans absorbed it
relatively quickly. The theater of the towers collapsing has a serious
impact.
Post by entropy
Yes, your points about the choice of target and what it represented
are all correct WRT what has been gleaned from OBL comments about the
attack. But the intention to kill as many people as possible was
there, and to refer to the ultimate loss of life as an accident is to
place that loss in an inappropriate context.
"Accident" is the wrong word. "Incidental" would be more accurate, I
guess.
Post by entropy
If you want to continue to argue this, I'll give you the last word.
I don't see how you can defend your position, but this is Usenet and
the last thing anybody ever seems to do around here is concede an
error.
My position is simple. That the building collapsed was unforeseen, and
it's something that occurred to me as having symbolic importance, as
having political ramifications. I have no position to defend. I just
wonder how the president would have reacted had the building remained
standing, the degree with which it would have been considered a
terrorist attack in a context above and beyond previous terrorist
attacks. That's how this thread started. You can get self-righteous if
you like, but that's not what this is about. People die all the time
due to the various evil acts or disregard for humanity by some other
segment of humanity. I don't hold the 9/11 people in any more regard
than I do people starving to death in Africa or people forced into slave
labor in Indonesia. I'm not much into nationalism, only what's really
morally right and wrong, from a transcendental level.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
entropy
2005-06-18 02:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again?
And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.
He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).
Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident.
They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse.
They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater,
as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of
American economic imperialism.>>>
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers.
Post by Alric Knebel
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head.
How was I in error if you just agreed with me?
Because they intended to kill as many people as possible. You
said 3,000 dead was an accident. The towers falling was the
accident, not the deaths. If the attacks had come around 11a instead
of around 9a, when the buildings would have been at peak daily
capacity, 3,000 could have pretty easily been killed at impact alone,
with more killed on collapse.
The WTC had a carrying capacity of at least 50,000 people, most of
them in the two towers.
The deaths occurred because of the towers falling.
Listen, friend: I was there. The initial impact slaughtered hundreds
of people sitting at their desks, right off the bat. Then there were
the people we watched explode on the sidewalk after jumping to their
deaths because they were trapped by the fires burning below them.
They jumped rather than burn to death. We stepped over their broken
pieces and in their blood. This was before the towers fell.
So don't tell me that "the" deaths occurred because of the towers
falling, because if you say that you're talking out of your ass.
I never said that.
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
The deaths occurred because of the towers falling.
What's wrong with you. I know people died from the
impact. Hell, that's obvious. I said THREE THOUSAND died because of
the collapse of the building. Many more would have been rescued had
that not happened. Hell, you have to remember, firemen and policeman in
the rescue effort are counted among the casualties. How many of them?
Over 300.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
And I'm generally sympathetic to your position. But get your facts
straight, or shut up.
Post by Alric Knebel
The towers falling
was an accident, yes, that's what I said. The weren't really interested
in the number dead, but, yes, the more the merrier. The main thing was
the act itself, that the building was selected not because of the number
of people it housed, but because of what it stood for. If they were
interested in the numbers dead, they could have crashed the plane
somewhere else, or, if it's as you said about the time, they would have
hijacked the planes later. If the towers hadn't fallen, only a few
hundred people would have been killed. But it would have still made
fantastic television. The terrorists were after good theater. When the
towers fell, they must have been elated.
Them and the Chinese leadership, who repeatedly replayed news video
of the planes crashing into the buildings and the towers falling for
days afterwards. Positively gleeful, Chinese president Jiang Zemin
was reported to be. An arrogant nation was getting its comeuppance.
I also notice you're mediating your position a little, and saying
that only a few hundred people would have been killed if the towers
hadn't fallen.
No, not at all. All I ever said was that the number of casualties and
the fact that the building collapsed was a surprise to even the
terrorists. No one foresaw that. Did you think I meant that NO people
would have been killed?
Post by entropy
That's far from certain. A lot of people were trapped on the upper
floors above the fire, and they would have remained stuck there as
the fires burned. It would have taken days to get the fires out,
with innumerable loss of life. It's obvious that a big chunk of the
3,000 came from those floors. So we might be talking about 2,000
instead of 3,000 -- but, believe me, it's offensive to talk about
those who died that day in this way.
No, it's not. I'm not talking realities as a terrorist act. You have
to look at how this topic originated. I'm asking how the country would
have reacted had that building not collapsed. Look at Oklahoma City.
The whole front of that building came down, and Americans absorbed it
relatively quickly. The theater of the towers collapsing has a serious
impact.
Post by entropy
Yes, your points about the choice of target and what it represented
are all correct WRT what has been gleaned from OBL comments about the
attack. But the intention to kill as many people as possible was
there, and to refer to the ultimate loss of life as an accident is to
place that loss in an inappropriate context.
"Accident" is the wrong word. "Incidental" would be more accurate, I
guess.
Incidental is a better choice.

But I remember very clearly standing next to the Hudson River in
Battery Park City, before the first tower fell, and never hating
anyone so much as I hated the people that attacked us. If an Army
recruiter had walked by, I'd have paid him to sign me up. I'm also
confident I'm not the only one who felt that way. So I don't accept
at all your apparent argument that we would have largely shrugged it
off if the towers hadn't fell.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
If you want to continue to argue this, I'll give you the last word.
I don't see how you can defend your position, but this is Usenet and
the last thing anybody ever seems to do around here is concede an
error.
My position is simple. That the building collapsed was unforeseen, and
it's something that occurred to me as having symbolic importance, as
having political ramifications. I have no position to defend. I just
wonder how the president would have reacted had the building remained
standing, the degree with which it would have been considered a
terrorist attack in a context above and beyond previous terrorist
attacks.
We will never know. So any answer is ultimately indefensible.
Post by Alric Knebel
That's how this thread started. You can get self-righteous if
you like, but that's not what this is about. People die all the time
due to the various evil acts or disregard for humanity by some other
segment of humanity. I don't hold the 9/11 people in any more regard
than I do people starving to death in Africa or people forced into slave
labor in Indonesia. I'm not much into nationalism, only what's really
morally right and wrong, from a transcendental level.
Have you ever seen any of those people die? Not on TV. In front of
you, with your own eyes.

It makes evil somewhat less abstract.

I'm not a nationalist either. My hatred was gut level, and didn't
have anything to do with America. The M'Fers could have killed ME,
they did kill a bunch of people I saw die--and they actually very
nearly did kill my wife and then-7mo son.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Alric Knebel
2005-06-21 01:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
That's how this thread started. You can get self-righteous if
you like, but that's not what this is about. People die all the time
due to the various evil acts or disregard for humanity by some other
segment of humanity. I don't hold the 9/11 people in any more regard
than I do people starving to death in Africa or people forced into slave
labor in Indonesia. I'm not much into nationalism, only what's really
morally right and wrong, from a transcendental level.
Have you ever seen any of those people die? Not on TV. In front of
you, with your own eyes.
It makes evil somewhat less abstract.
I'm not a nationalist either. My hatred was gut level, and didn't
have anything to do with America. The M'Fers could have killed ME,
they did kill a bunch of people I saw die--and they actually very
nearly did kill my wife and then-7mo son.
Well, count yourself lucky, then, that they didn't kill you or your
anyone else close to you, and move on. Don't expect people to give you
some extra consideration because you were ALMOST in a situation in which
you MIGHT have died. You're throwing out hypotheticals to put yourself
in harm's way, then reacting as if it happened, then expected me to
commiserate with you.

In answer to your other comment (not quoted) about whether I'd have
shrugged it off (if the towers hadn't fallen), no, I wouldn't have
SHRUGGED it off, but I wouldn't have thrown all of our military
resources into it just to make a point. It's expensive, and we have our
own problems. As it is, I don't approve of the administration using the
tragedy as an excuse to forward a private agenda, exploiting emotions
like yours to accomplish it.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
entropy
2005-06-21 06:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
That's how this thread started. You can get self-righteous if
you like, but that's not what this is about. People die all the time
due to the various evil acts or disregard for humanity by some other
segment of humanity. I don't hold the 9/11 people in any more regard
than I do people starving to death in Africa or people forced into slave
labor in Indonesia. I'm not much into nationalism, only what's really
morally right and wrong, from a transcendental level.
Have you ever seen any of those people die? Not on TV. In front of
you, with your own eyes.
It makes evil somewhat less abstract.
I'm not a nationalist either. My hatred was gut level, and didn't
have anything to do with America. The M'Fers could have killed ME,
they did kill a bunch of people I saw die--and they actually very
nearly did kill my wife and then-7mo son.
Well, count yourself lucky, then, that they didn't kill you or your
anyone else close to you, and move on. Don't expect people to give you
some extra consideration because you were ALMOST in a situation in which
you MIGHT have died.
You, like all of us, are completely incapable of understanding people
who have experienced things you haven't. You, like all of us, cast
the experience of those other people into a form that you do know
something about.

I don't think you give this trait the consideration you oughta, and
your comments miss the mark as a result.
Post by Alric Knebel
You're throwing out hypotheticals to put yourself
in harm's way, then reacting as if it happened, then expected me to
commiserate with you.
See above.
Post by Alric Knebel
In answer to your other comment (not quoted) about whether I'd have
shrugged it off (if the towers hadn't fallen), no, I wouldn't have
SHRUGGED it off, but I wouldn't have thrown all of our military
resources into it just to make a point. It's expensive, and we have our
own problems. As it is, I don't approve of the administration using the
tragedy as an excuse to forward a private agenda, exploiting emotions
like yours to accomplish it.
Poor analysis. Bush & Co create and exploit fear. Me? Not scared.

BTW. Registered Democrat, voted for Gore then Kerry. Can't stand
anything about Bush or his administration, not the least of which is
taking us into Iraq for no good reason at all. Pissed at the idiocy
of my fellow citizens who fell for it.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Alric Knebel
2005-06-21 07:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
That's how this thread started. You can get self-righteous if
you like, but that's not what this is about. People die all the time
due to the various evil acts or disregard for humanity by some other
segment of humanity. I don't hold the 9/11 people in any more regard
than I do people starving to death in Africa or people forced into slave
labor in Indonesia. I'm not much into nationalism, only what's really
morally right and wrong, from a transcendental level.
Have you ever seen any of those people die? Not on TV. In front of
you, with your own eyes.
It makes evil somewhat less abstract.
I'm not a nationalist either. My hatred was gut level, and didn't
have anything to do with America. The M'Fers could have killed ME,
they did kill a bunch of people I saw die--and they actually very
nearly did kill my wife and then-7mo son.
Well, count yourself lucky, then, that they didn't kill you or your
anyone else close to you, and move on. Don't expect people to give you
some extra consideration because you were ALMOST in a situation in which
you MIGHT have died.
You, like all of us, are completely incapable of understanding people
who have experienced things you haven't. You, like all of us, cast
the experience of those other people into a form that you do know
something about.
I don't think you give this trait the consideration you oughta, and
your comments miss the mark as a result.
Actually, I do. It's a somewhat glossy comment you made, and the
glossiness of it made you think it was really heavy, but it wasn't.
When I looked at people jumping out of windows, I was very moved by it.
In fact, I was brought on the verge of bawling. But I feel it, then
move on and I accept my limitations. I can't empathize with one tragedy
more than another once the moment has passed.
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
You're throwing out hypotheticals to put yourself
in harm's way, then reacting as if it happened, then expected me to
commiserate with you.
See above.
What for? It wasn't pertinent to me the first time.
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
In answer to your other comment (not quoted) about whether I'd have
shrugged it off (if the towers hadn't fallen), no, I wouldn't have
SHRUGGED it off, but I wouldn't have thrown all of our military
resources into it just to make a point. It's expensive, and we have our
own problems. As it is, I don't approve of the administration using the
tragedy as an excuse to forward a private agenda, exploiting emotions
like yours to accomplish it.
Poor analysis. Bush & Co create and exploit fear. Me? Not scared.
What was a poor analysis, you glib prick? You're so glib as to be
incomprehensible. Were you talking about my accusing Bush of exploiting
9/11? The thing is, you seem to be agreeing with my poor analysis
almost letter for letter down below.
Post by entropy
BTW. Registered Democrat, voted for Gore then Kerry. Can't stand
anything about Bush or his administration, not the least of which is
taking us into Iraq for no good reason at all. Pissed at the idiocy
of my fellow citizens who fell for it.
Well, we agree then.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
entropy
2005-06-21 13:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
That's how this thread started. You can get self-righteous if
you like, but that's not what this is about. People die all the time
due to the various evil acts or disregard for humanity by some other
segment of humanity. I don't hold the 9/11 people in any more regard
than I do people starving to death in Africa or people forced into slave
labor in Indonesia. I'm not much into nationalism, only what's really
morally right and wrong, from a transcendental level.
Have you ever seen any of those people die? Not on TV. In front of
you, with your own eyes.
It makes evil somewhat less abstract.
I'm not a nationalist either. My hatred was gut level, and didn't
have anything to do with America. The M'Fers could have killed ME,
they did kill a bunch of people I saw die--and they actually very
nearly did kill my wife and then-7mo son.
Well, count yourself lucky, then, that they didn't kill you or your
anyone else close to you, and move on. Don't expect people to give you
some extra consideration because you were ALMOST in a situation in which
you MIGHT have died.
You, like all of us, are completely incapable of understanding people
who have experienced things you haven't. You, like all of us, cast
the experience of those other people into a form that you do know
something about.
I don't think you give this trait the consideration you oughta, and
your comments miss the mark as a result.
Actually, I do. It's a somewhat glossy comment you made, and the
glossiness of it made you think it was really heavy, but it wasn't.
When I looked at people jumping out of windows, I was very moved by it.
In fact, I was brought on the verge of bawling. But I feel it, then
move on and I accept my limitations. I can't empathize with one tragedy
more than another once the moment has passed.
Watch 'em on TV, do you? Why don't you actually go through something
before you presume to give advice on how to deal with it?
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
You're throwing out hypotheticals to put yourself
in harm's way, then reacting as if it happened, then expected me to
commiserate with you.
See above.
What for? It wasn't pertinent to me the first time.
More than you know!
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
In answer to your other comment (not quoted) about whether I'd have
shrugged it off (if the towers hadn't fallen), no, I wouldn't have
SHRUGGED it off, but I wouldn't have thrown all of our military
resources into it just to make a point. It's expensive, and we have our
own problems. As it is, I don't approve of the administration using the
tragedy as an excuse to forward a private agenda, exploiting emotions
like yours to accomplish it.
Poor analysis. Bush & Co create and exploit fear. Me? Not scared.
What was a poor analysis, you glib prick?
Name calling? I've been frustrated at your pop psychology, but I've
managed to restrain myself.
Post by Alric Knebel
You're so glib as to be
incomprehensible. Were you talking about my accusing Bush of exploiting
9/11? The thing is, you seem to be agreeing with my poor analysis
almost letter for letter down below.
The poor analysis is the 'emotions like yours' part. You're reading
an awful lot into what I've written that isn't there. My entire
motive in even discussing 9/11 is to draw a distinction between those
who have been through things like 9/11 versus those who watched them
on TV.
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
BTW. Registered Democrat, voted for Gore then Kerry. Can't stand
anything about Bush or his administration, not the least of which is
taking us into Iraq for no good reason at all. Pissed at the idiocy
of my fellow citizens who fell for it.
Well, we agree then.
Fuck yourself. <Plonk>
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Alric Knebel
2005-06-21 21:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
That's how this thread started. You can get self-righteous if
you like, but that's not what this is about. People die all the time
due to the various evil acts or disregard for humanity by some other
segment of humanity. I don't hold the 9/11 people in any more regard
than I do people starving to death in Africa or people forced into slave
labor in Indonesia. I'm not much into nationalism, only what's really
morally right and wrong, from a transcendental level.
Have you ever seen any of those people die? Not on TV. In front of
you, with your own eyes.
It makes evil somewhat less abstract.
I'm not a nationalist either. My hatred was gut level, and didn't
have anything to do with America. The M'Fers could have killed ME,
they did kill a bunch of people I saw die--and they actually very
nearly did kill my wife and then-7mo son.
Well, count yourself lucky, then, that they didn't kill you or your
anyone else close to you, and move on. Don't expect people to give you
some extra consideration because you were ALMOST in a situation in which
you MIGHT have died.
You, like all of us, are completely incapable of understanding people
who have experienced things you haven't. You, like all of us, cast
the experience of those other people into a form that you do know
something about.
I don't think you give this trait the consideration you oughta, and
your comments miss the mark as a result.
Actually, I do. It's a somewhat glossy comment you made, and the
glossiness of it made you think it was really heavy, but it wasn't.
When I looked at people jumping out of windows, I was very moved by it.
In fact, I was brought on the verge of bawling. But I feel it, then
move on and I accept my limitations. I can't empathize with one tragedy
more than another once the moment has passed.
Watch 'em on TV, do you? Why don't you actually go through something
before you presume to give advice on how to deal with it?
I'm not giving advice on how to deal with it. You are, you dweeb.
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
You're throwing out hypotheticals to put yourself
in harm's way, then reacting as if it happened, then expected me to
commiserate with you.
See above.
What for? It wasn't pertinent to me the first time.
More than you know!
No, it wasn't, and you saying so doesn't make it so.
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
In answer to your other comment (not quoted) about whether I'd have
shrugged it off (if the towers hadn't fallen), no, I wouldn't have
SHRUGGED it off, but I wouldn't have thrown all of our military
resources into it just to make a point. It's expensive, and we have our
own problems. As it is, I don't approve of the administration using the
tragedy as an excuse to forward a private agenda, exploiting emotions
like yours to accomplish it.
Poor analysis. Bush & Co create and exploit fear. Me? Not scared.
What was a poor analysis, you glib prick?
Name calling? I've been frustrated at your pop psychology, but I've
managed to restrain myself.
No, you haven't. You've been a glib prick. Rudeness is rudeness,
period. Don't take the high road now, prick.
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
You're so glib as to be
incomprehensible. Were you talking about my accusing Bush of exploiting
9/11? The thing is, you seem to be agreeing with my poor analysis
almost letter for letter down below.
The poor analysis is the 'emotions like yours' part. You're reading
an awful lot into what I've written that isn't there. My entire
motive in even discussing 9/11 is to draw a distinction between those
who have been through things like 9/11 versus those who watched them
on TV.
Your view of mine as a "poor analysis" is worth nothing. YOU find
gravitas in your own view because you arbitrarily grant yourself
gravitas, not by anything real. My view isn't based on experience.
Also, you were merely a WITNESS to it. The only difference is
proximity. What you do is make a rule up that arbitrarily puts you in a
position of self-importance.
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by entropy
BTW. Registered Democrat, voted for Gore then Kerry. Can't stand
anything about Bush or his administration, not the least of which is
taking us into Iraq for no good reason at all. Pissed at the idiocy
of my fellow citizens who fell for it.
Well, we agree then.
Fuck yourself. <Plonk>
LOL! You fucking pussy.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
b***@aol.com
2005-06-19 06:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
The deaths occurred because of the towers falling. The towers falling
was an accident, yes, that's what I said.>>>

Remember when you wrote that nobody in the Air Force where you
sometimes works likes you? I think we've stumbled on the reason.
You're an idiot.

The terrorists who killed six Americans in 1993 by setting off a bomb
in the World Trade Center have repeated stated that their intention was
to cause the constructs to fall over, killing 250,000 innocent people.
We know this because clinton has allowed this shit-heads to stay alive
all these years. You'll be pleased to know that they returned
Clinton's kindness by laughing in the guards faces when the towers fell
three years ago. The terrorists who were treated humanly, who received
protection, food, clothing, head, religious material, free legal
advice, entertainment at the expense of the country they tried to
destroy jumped up and down for joy when 3000 Americans died.

And they would jump up and down just as happily if you were crippled.
They consider you a fool and a traitor. I guess even a stopped clock
is right twice a day.
Alric Knebel
2005-06-21 01:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Alric Knebel
The deaths occurred because of the towers falling. The towers falling
was an accident, yes, that's what I said.>>>
Remember when you wrote that nobody in the Air Force where you
sometimes works likes you? I think we've stumbled on the reason.
You're an idiot.
Do you remember when I called you an idiot, and you were puzzled why?
Here's why: You're an idiot. I never said everybody in the Air Force
disliked me.
Post by b***@aol.com
The terrorists who killed six Americans in 1993 by setting off a bomb
in the World Trade Center have repeated stated that their intention was
to cause the constructs to fall over, killing 250,000 innocent people.
We know this because clinton has allowed this shit-heads to stay alive
all these years. You'll be pleased to know that they returned
Clinton's kindness by laughing in the guards faces when the towers fell
three years ago. The terrorists who were treated humanly, who received
protection, food, clothing, head, religious material, free legal
advice, entertainment at the expense of the country they tried to
destroy jumped up and down for joy when 3000 Americans died.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you fanatical Blame-Clinton-Firster. That was so much
hyperbole coming out at once, I'm surprised you didn't choke. Say
something that's FACTUAL, not what you like to believe because your
spavined soul craves the poison.
Post by b***@aol.com
And they would jump up and down just as happily if you were crippled.
They consider you a fool and a traitor. I guess even a stopped clock
is right twice a day.
What an idiot. I bet you you're on medication. Are you? I bet you
are. It's just an observation, not a judgment. Someone with opinions
as fucked up as yours has a polluted soul, and that soul is a constant
within you, tamping your creativity, your outlook, the intelligence
required for dealing with your bad emotions. I bet you're on
medication, but you're not smart enough to make the most of it. This is
not in any way a judgment of people on medication, because I've heard
great things about medication. But I had this friend of mine who no
matter what medication they put him on, he was still the same miserable
lout.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
b***@aol.com
2005-06-18 23:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
Post by entropy
What did Saddam have to do with 9/11 again? >>>>
The same thing that Hitler and Mussolini had to do with Pearl Harbor.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by entropy
And what bin Laden is quoted as saying on the subject is that
American continuance of its policies in the Middle East after being
struck there repeatedly was what motivated an escalation.

He's also quoted as saying that he judged American military strength
to be a paper tiger because of its unwillingness to stick it out when
the going gets tough (Mogadishu, specificially).

Now I don't give a fuck what bin Laden says about anything, but if
you're going to cite him, at least cite him correctly. >>>

So, you know that terrorists take comfort when America shows military
weakness, and yet you demand America act weakly.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by entropy
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident. They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse. They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater, as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of American economic imperialism.>>>
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
The plan was to show that America could be struck on its home soil,
by killing as many as possible in an attack that the planners never
dreamed would topple the towers. >>>

So, your response when I accuse you of making excuses for people who
killed 3000 Americas is to, well, make an excuse for the people who
killed 3000 Americans.
Post by b***@aol.com
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
While the other poster is in error, you're fucked in the head. >>>

Hey, if your family gets killed by the terrorists, I'm perfectly
willing to understand why they did it. Isn't that enough to make you
happy?
Alric Knebel
2005-06-17 23:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alric Knebel
Post by Alric Knebel
Clinton followed THE LAW, and his actions had no direct consequences to
anything. That they attacked the WTC which eventuated in three thousand
deaths was not a result of their viewing Clinton's response as a
weakness, inspiring them to think in larger terms.>>>>
Bin Laden and Saddam says otherwise.
Post by Alric Knebel
That they killed three thousand people was an accident. They had no idea that the buildings were going to collapse. They were looking at the whole stunt as some form of theater, as a symbolic act, that they had struck a symbol of American economic imperialism.>>>
And this is what the modern left has degenerated down to? Making
excuses for animals who murder 3000 americans?
Here's hoping that the next time the terrorists strick, they cripple
you, and kill everyone you love. Then you will have a lot of time to
reflect of the joys of being a "symbolic act".
This is how I know you're mentally ill or mentally deficient or a
mixture of both. You're just stupidly hateful. I never made excuses
for them. I'm telling you a fact. The building collapsing was
unforeseen, by EVERYBODY. I saw a detailed analysis of why it
collapsed, and it was very surprising. The point I was trying to make,
you shit-slurping nincompoop, was that the attack wasn't in the minds of
the terrorists much different than what they had attempted before,
impressive only in it's execution, that it covered so many bases (used
airplanes instead of a planted bomb). I'm only explaining the reality
to you, instead of your partisan take on it. After that comment, how
you wished my family harm, you're damn lucky we don't live in the same
town. Damn lucky, you disgusting right-wing loon.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
Eris
2005-06-17 00:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
tyrants is a good idea>>>>
America is nothing at all like Saddam. I'm not talking about throwing
women and children into wood chippers to seize control.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Not to mention you are assuming your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other criminals,
they will have forfeited most of their rights. >>>>
Bill Clinton tried treating terrorists like criminals. He arrested the
guys who blew up the World Trade Center. Have them lawyers and a trial
and a clean bed and fresh food. The terrorists saw this as weakness,
and killed three thousand Americans. Just how many people have to die
before you have a glimmer of reaity poke through your dense head?
The terrorist blew up the barracks in Lebanon, Reagan ran. What did
the terrorist learn?
a***@no-spam-panix.com
2005-06-17 14:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
bvallely> tyrants is a good idea>>>>

bvallely> America is nothing at all like Saddam. I'm not talking about throwing
bvallely> women and children into wood chippers to seize control.

You are talking about locking people up, with no
proof of any guilt or any review of their cases.

That is tyranny. We need to be better.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Not to mention you are assuming your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
bvallely> to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other criminals,
bvallely> they will have forfeited most of their rights. >>>>

bvallely> Bill Clinton tried treating terrorists like criminals. He arrested the
bvallely> guys who blew up the World Trade Center. Have them lawyers and a trial
bvallely> and a clean bed and fresh food. The terrorists saw this as weakness,
bvallely> and killed three thousand Americans. Just how many people have to die
bvallely> before you have a glimmer of reaity poke through your dense head?

The irony is amusing, if sad.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
entropy
2005-06-17 15:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
bvallely> tyrants is a good idea>>>>
bvallely> America is nothing at all like Saddam. I'm not talking about throwing
bvallely> women and children into wood chippers to seize control.
You are talking about locking people up, with no
proof of any guilt or any review of their cases.
That is tyranny. We need to be better.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Not to mention you are assuming your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
bvallely> to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other criminals,
bvallely> they will have forfeited most of their rights. >>>>
bvallely> Bill Clinton tried treating terrorists like criminals. He arrested the
bvallely> guys who blew up the World Trade Center. Have them lawyers and a trial
bvallely> and a clean bed and fresh food. The terrorists saw this as weakness,
bvallely> and killed three thousand Americans. Just how many people have to die
bvallely> before you have a glimmer of reaity poke through your dense head?
The irony is amusing, if sad.
Not only that, it's wrong. What convinced the terrorists we were
weak was when we pulled our Marines out of Mogadishu after getting a
bloody nose in 1993. They mistook our lack of political will for
lack of military courage. (This lack of political will was not
Clinton's. The obstructionist Republican Congress was 100% opposed
to military involvement during Clinton's entire term in office. It's
insane to me that they now have a chunk of the US voters convinced
they're the 'national security' party.)

There's clear moral superiority demonstrated by treating your enemy
humanely despite his inhumanity. I'm not convinced that the prisoner
abuses we've seen reported so far cross the line into abject
inhumanity, although I'm deeply concerned about the lack of due
process and legal standing of these prisoners. That's the part
that's unconstitutional, and reeks of arrogant misuse of power.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
a***@no-spam-panix.com
2005-06-17 19:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
bvallely> tyrants is a good idea>>>>
bvallely> America is nothing at all like Saddam. I'm not talking about throwing
bvallely> women and children into wood chippers to seize control.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
You are talking about locking people up, with no
proof of any guilt or any review of their cases.
That is tyranny. We need to be better.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Not to mention you are assuming your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
bvallely> to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other criminals,
bvallely> they will have forfeited most of their rights. >>>>
bvallely> Bill Clinton tried treating terrorists like criminals. He arrested the
bvallely> guys who blew up the World Trade Center. Have them lawyers and a trial
bvallely> and a clean bed and fresh food. The terrorists saw this as weakness,
bvallely> and killed three thousand Americans. Just how many people have to die
bvallely> before you have a glimmer of reaity poke through your dense head?
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
The irony is amusing, if sad.
entropy> Not only that, it's wrong. What convinced the terrorists we were
entropy> weak was when we pulled our Marines out of Mogadishu after getting a
entropy> bloody nose in 1993. They mistook our lack of political will for

That enforced what happened after we pulled
out of Beruit after the truck bombing in Reagan's
era.

entropy> lack of military courage. (This lack of political will was not
entropy> Clinton's. The obstructionist Republican Congress was 100% opposed
entropy> to military involvement during Clinton's entire term in office. It's

Congress was still democratic when we pulled out of Somalia.

entropy> insane to me that they now have a chunk of the US voters convinced
entropy> they're the 'national security' party.)

entropy> There's clear moral superiority demonstrated by treating your enemy
entropy> humanely despite his inhumanity. I'm not convinced that the prisoner
entropy> abuses we've seen reported so far cross the line into abject
entropy> inhumanity, although I'm deeply concerned about the lack of due
entropy> process and legal standing of these prisoners. That's the part
entropy> that's unconstitutional, and reeks of arrogant misuse of power.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
entropy
2005-06-17 21:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Unlike you, I do not think being like Saddam and other
bvallely> tyrants is a good idea>>>>
bvallely> America is nothing at all like Saddam. I'm not talking about throwing
bvallely> women and children into wood chippers to seize control.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
You are talking about locking people up, with no
proof of any guilt or any review of their cases.
That is tyranny. We need to be better.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
Not to mention you are assuming your conclusion. Terrorists, like other people, deserve
bvallely> to have their guilt demonstrated. Once it is, like other criminals,
bvallely> they will have forfeited most of their rights. >>>>
bvallely> Bill Clinton tried treating terrorists like criminals. He arrested the
bvallely> guys who blew up the World Trade Center. Have them lawyers and a trial
bvallely> and a clean bed and fresh food. The terrorists saw this as weakness,
bvallely> and killed three thousand Americans. Just how many people have to die
bvallely> before you have a glimmer of reaity poke through your dense head?
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
The irony is amusing, if sad.
entropy> Not only that, it's wrong. What convinced the terrorists we were
entropy> weak was when we pulled our Marines out of Mogadishu after getting a
entropy> bloody nose in 1993. They mistook our lack of political will for
That enforced what happened after we pulled
out of Beruit after the truck bombing in Reagan's
era.
Yes. Although technically it was US Army Rangers and Delta Force,
not Marines per se. I caught that after hitting 'send'.
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
entropy> lack of military courage. (This lack of political will was not
entropy> Clinton's. The obstructionist Republican Congress was 100% opposed
entropy> to military involvement during Clinton's entire term in office. It's
Congress was still democratic when we pulled out of Somalia.
I caught that right after hitting 'send' too. I knew somebody would
point it out. Thanks.

Rather, "The obstructionists Republicans IN Congress were..."
Post by a***@no-spam-panix.com
entropy> insane to me that they now have a chunk of the US voters convinced
entropy> they're the 'national security' party.)
entropy> There's clear moral superiority demonstrated by treating your enemy
entropy> humanely despite his inhumanity. I'm not convinced that the prisoner
entropy> abuses we've seen reported so far cross the line into abject
entropy> inhumanity, although I'm deeply concerned about the lack of due
entropy> process and legal standing of these prisoners. That's the part
entropy> that's unconstitutional, and reeks of arrogant misuse of power.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Topaz
2005-06-15 23:06:18 UTC
Permalink
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponants and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.

Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:

"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"

The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.


Here is part of the Leuchter Report:

"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are
set out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that
the few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"

Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas
chamber" which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually
built by the allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:

Brian Harmon <***@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%***@msg.ucsf.edu>...

"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V
are in their demolished state as they were left."

Charles Don Hall <cdhall-***@erols.com> wrote in article
<***@news.erols.com>...

"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.

"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it
would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully admit
that
it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."

They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at
Auschwitz was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no
physical evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of
people who died from gas have been found. The Communists were the
first to enter the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists
didn't blow up the buildings? Then they could claim that these
demolished buildings used to be gas chambers.

But then the believers will say the Gemans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:

"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992],
the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess
by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating
what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.

In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death,
Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three days, he
and
Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture Hoess into
making a
"coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions of Death, p. 237],
he
and the other interrogators put the boots to Hoess the moment he was
captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face four times to get
Höess to
reveal his true identity.

<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the
arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order
signed by Höss.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables,
where it
seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless
you want to take back a corpse."

A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where
the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat.
Höss
tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered
in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."

For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification:
"I
took my orders frorn Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are
a soldier and we had to obey orders."

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The
snow was
swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to
walk
completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>

An article in the Britsh newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with
a Nazi war criminal -- We kept him awake until he confessed," October
17,
1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case of Rudolf
Hoess
included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:

<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us
when
he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during
the
war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail
cell in
the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed
with
Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for
interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed
with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help
break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out
for
exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the
bitter
cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke
down
and made a full confession to the authorities.
</quote>

The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped,
as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral deposition
Hoess
made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it had been
extracted
from him by torture...


Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.

The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.

The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions
of Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:

Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:

"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)


Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
translated by Charles Malamuth.

In this book he told who the principle members of the October
Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:

"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
Trotzky--131."

Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London
Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.

David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:

"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent
of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other
country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a
world-wide revolution."

The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:

"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."

In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:

Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.

Andrew Roth, a Jew.

Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.

John Service, a gentile.

Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown

Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.

In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.

The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was
Gerhart Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist
Party in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.

In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film
writers of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of
Congress and sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of
the ten were communist party members and the other four were
flagrantly pro-communist.

One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis
and the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National
Secretariat of the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two
gentiles, three nationality unknown.

Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.

Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
thoughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."


"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."

The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and
published by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes
Stalin in an interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Stalin said:

"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."

The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:

State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."

State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."

From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type"
type."

A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
"...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it
is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of
things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish
dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920

"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)

Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by
Stalin
himself:

"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism,
as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige
of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).


Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."

Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.

Here is something the National Socialists wrote:

"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."






www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Alric Knebel
2005-06-16 04:44:45 UTC
Permalink
crap deleted
Hey, termite, you already posted that one. Let me ask you, have you
been getting any converts?
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
Topaz
2005-06-16 23:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Here are some quotes from a German pamphlet titled "Why the Aryan
Law?":
"In 1793 the famous philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, author of
"Speeches to the German Nation," wrote a pamphlet titled "A
Contribution to Correcting Judgments about the French Revolution." It
contained the following significant sentence:
"In nearly all the nations of Europe, a powerful, hostile government
is growing, and is at war with all the others, and sometimes oppresses
the people in dreadful ways: It is Jewry!"
The French Revolution, with its "ideas for the improvement of
humanity" thundered past, and in the noise the people who had believed
in world brotherhood entirely missed this serious warning. What Fichte
warned the word about then has today become fact in nearly all the
nations of the world. The Jewish people, once only tolerated, knew how
to raise a hue and cry about discrimination and persecution, winning
the sympathy of the world for the "poor Jews." They increasingly
infiltrated deep within our national organism, growing to have power
over every single area of our national life. The old saga, the "Edda,"
observes that one blocks a river at its source. The failure to do that
was the great mistake of the German people. Thank God, it is not too
late. Our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler recognized the importance of the
problem for Germany's rebirth, and outlined its solution in his
program.
Martin Luther wrote this of the Jews in his book "The Jews and their
Lies": "They hold we Christians captive in our own land. They have
seized our goods by their cursed usury, they mock and insult us
because we work. They are our lords, and we and our goods belong to
them." If in the coming days the Jewish race is driven out of the
non-Jewish world, it will have at least this consolation: It has made
clear to them for all time the value of maintaining the purity of race
and blood in clear, understandable and unforgettable ways.
National Socialist racial legislation has reduced the influence of
Jewry in all professions, and above all excluded them from the leading
offices of the nation. That is an important step in the relationship
between Germans and Jews, but one cannot ignore the fact that we have
not yet fully eliminated the influence of the Jewish foreign body in
German national life. It is not a question of German-Jewish
coexistence, rather of making as great as possible a separation
between blood and blood.
Three things are involved here:
A knowledge of the basic principles of National Socialist racial
thinking,
An understanding of the growth and expansion of Jewry,
The dominant sociological position of Jewry, to show how it dominated
the German people economically, intellectually and politically..."
"In discussing the Jewish Question, even today one encounters
resistance and misunderstandings, especially in intellectual circles.
This can only be explained by the intellectual education of the
political past. This is especially evident when one discusses the
fundamental issues.
Whenever a new thought arises in the world and calls people to
practical action, the old world resists because it feels its
foundations threatened. Its old standpoint has ruled for decades, and
it looks uncomprehendingly at a new idea that does not fit into the
accustomed patterns of thinking. That is natural. When the new idea
and worldview are truly revolutionary, they are on a different level
of human thought and feeling, and there can be no compromise. Its
realization depends on people who support it, and who are ready to
fight to transform the life of the individual and of the nation in
every way..."
"In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between
nations than National Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the
furtherance and maintenance of one's own race and one's own people,
and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations..."
"The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must
therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and
another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both
sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according
to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe
that is is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The
world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context
of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.
The National Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the
relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that
National Socialism's approach to the racial question is purely
negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is
radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question
clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had
been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of
the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world.
Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power
must be seen as the political education of the German people, which
had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
The question took on its own nature in Germany, Many citizens had
their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and
manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of
political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state.
Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of
complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the
East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness
had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple
rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of
our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its
Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial
measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action
in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its
anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other
country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of
anti-Semitism.
The starting point of the discussion is the scientific fact that the
Jew is different than the German. This is neither arrogant nor
boastful, it simply is the way things are. For us, the Jewish question
is a question between two peoples. Its characteristics are determined
by the racially determined differences between the two, and through
the unusual sociological and numerical development of Jewry in the
course of its history, developments that are particularly evident in
the last decades through a constantly growing process of foreign
infiltration that has reached an intolerable level for the German
people.
More than once over its history, the German people has absorbed
foreign elements, but they were racially identical or similar
population groups, as for example was the case with the Huguenots.
With the Jews, things are fundamentally different. They are seen
everywhere as foreigners, and see themselves that way as well. Walter
Rathenau said it most clearly as early as 1897: "How strange! In the
middle of German life there is a separate, foreign tribe that stands
out in every way with its hot-tempered behavior. An Asiatic horde has
settled on the sands of Mark Brandenburg." Einstein said something in
1931: "I have to laugh when I hear the phrase 'German citizen of the
Jewish faith.' These citizens first of all want nothing to do with my
poor Eastern European brothers, and second do not want to be sons of
my (Jewish) people, but only members of the Jewish cultural community.
Is that honest? Can a non-Jew respect such people? I am not a German
citizen. I am a Jew, and am happy to belong to the Jewish people."
The most remarkable thing about Jewry is that it has not disappeared
over the millennia, even though it lacks its own territory and
language. Even more remarkable is that it lacks the main
characteristic of a minority population, its own pockets of settlement
to which it could if necessary retreat. Only time will tell if
Palestine will someday fill this gap. That question is made more
difficult by the fact that the Arabs maintain their claim on
Palestine. Whatever the twists of history, the Jew has always remained
the same, whether as a grain speculator in ancient Rome or as a bank
or stock exchange potentate in the modern era. They were always able
to control the wealth of whole nations. Nations and peoples once their
contemporaries have vanished, leaving only words and crumbled
monuments behind; only the Jew remains. In ancient days we see him
carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean.
In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free
cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole
world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The
power of this people of 15 million rests on these international
relations. This is how they seem to fulfill the commandment of Jehovah
- the world domination of the chosen people.
The secret of the Jewish people, which has enabled them to survive
through all of history's twists and turns, is that it has always
recognized the laws of blood, even anchoring them in the laws of its
religion. The consciousness of blood and family that believing Jews
have has been stronger than all the other forces of history, giving us
a unique example of a people without its own land and language, which
still meets the criteria for being a people, and which has outlasted
many other peoples.
This historic manifestation of Jewry, which is unique, brings to the
fore the question of the relationship between the host and guest
peoples. It has been answered in differing ways throughout history,
depending on the worldview and thinking then predominant.
Since the Jews were dispersed they have been held together by the laws
of their religion and their faith that they were the chosen people.
Until the middle of the 18th Century, Germans and Jews lived apart
from each other. The Jews had no opportunity to become involved in the
religious of political-intellectual life of their host people. On the
other hand, they could practice their own customs without
interference. They had their own religion and their own laws. During
the Middle Ages, the Ghetto was the way Jewry could maintain itself in
the midst of other peoples and fulfill its Jewish duties, which grew
out of its race, origins and laws. The values and ideals of other
peoples were not affected. This separation was only possible because
the views of the host people were as strong as those of the Jews.
According to the writer Grau: "There was no racial defilement or
baptism, no attempt to join a nation that one could never be a member
of, and no attempt to intellectually silence the host people." In the
Ghetto of the Middle Ages, the Jew developed his nature and
characteristics, which were later to become significant, while
maintaining the community of blood and race. The latter is
particularly important, since the strict physical separation between
the host and guest peoples maintained the foreign nature that we daily
see so clearly, now that the barriers between have long since fallen.
Even in the Middle Ages, the most important thing was not the
difference between the Christian and Mosaic faiths. Rather, there was
on the one hand the natural sense that the Jew was of a foreign race,
and on the other hand the strict law of blood which demanded a clear
separation if the Jews were to fulfill Jehovah's mission, which had
guided them from the beginning. Just this has always been kept in the
background by historians, who present the Ghetto as a tolerated asylum
for Jewish martyrs persecuted on account of their faith. There is a
gap to be filled here. The task of historians writing from our new
viewpoint will be to examine the portrait of the Ghetto of the Middle
Ages to discover its importance for the development of Jewry and the
relationship between the guest and host peoples. Even the Jewish side
is demanding that. O. Karbach criticizes historical writing because it
"in significant ways conceals the historical fact that the Jews in the
centuries before their emancipation possessed a legal standing that
was better than the greater part of the rest of the population, namely
complete or partial agricultural freedom. (Ordnung in der Judenfrage,
edited by E. Czermak, Reinhold, Vienna, 1933).
The barriers between Germans and Jews fell as a result of the
Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The path to Jewish world
domination would take a different direction than pious, observant Jews
had expected. Emancipation made it possible to build Jewish dominance
through secular means. With the disappearance of racial consciousness,
only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time
unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his
religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time,
this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was
revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for
centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last
two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood
in the way of racial mixing. Some had the quiet hope that assimilation
would mean the absorption of Jewry. Jewry itself, however, was more
than willing to use the opportunities of religious assimilation, which
opened the path to all important positions, even to political
leadership. As H. Heine said, "baptism was the ticket to European
culture." Gradually, an intermixing with the German people developed,
particularly in its cultural elite. Foreign blood infiltrated to a
degree that we realize only today now that the "Law to Reestablish a
Professional Bureaucracy" has exposed numerous sources of foreign
blood. This process has greatly accelerated during the last fourteen
years.
Today the age of raceless thinking is being displaced by the ideals of
human variability. Values are rooted in origin and territory, and each
group has a historic mission based on its own unique and eternal
values. Such new racial thinking will of course secure the opposition
of those who either through faith or reason still believe in the unity
of humanity in culture, social order and organization. The Jews will
naturally oppose any discussion of race, since the denial of any
significant differences between people is the foundation of his
infiltration of Western European society. The Jew finds any mention of
the racial question as an attack on his current existence. His leading
role in every anti-national area is characteristic of his mimicry, and
is necessary for his continued existence. That explains the phrase
"German citizen of the Jewish faith."
The recognition that the Jew is of a foreign and different race along
with the reawakening of German racial consciousness must necessarily
lead to a change in the relations between Germans and Jews.
There is one point to keep in mind before examining the statistics.
Only those people who claimed to be Jews and were members of the
Mosaic faith were counted as Jews, not those who for internal or
external reasons belonged to another religion, or those who claimed to
be dissident Jews and therefore did not belong to the standard groups.
This is regrettable for our purposes, since we are interested not in
the influence of those who still claimed the Jewish religion, rather
those who belonged to the Jewish race! That includes all Jews, whether
of the Mosaic faith or baptized Christians. That is just what the
supporters of the Talmud and the Old Testament always said. They
complained that the state opened all offices to those "without
character," to "Christmas Jews," even admitting them to the officer
corps! The statistics given here must therefore be increased
significantly. The Jews are a race, and baptism does not in any way
change the foreign characteristics that are hostile to the German
people..."
Of course, the intellectual atmosphere that enabled the Jew to
infiltrate the German body politic quickly led the Jew himself to see
that conditions for his advancement were favorable, and that the way
to the top was open. He also realized what the population statistics
meant, indeed they were particularly clear to him, since 2/3 of his
kind lived in the big cities, the centers of the liberal worldview..."
"Nothing shows the differences between our people and the Jews more
clearly than their likes and dislikes for certain occupations. In some
occupations, particularly those that are most important for the nation
as a whole, the foreign influence on German life has reached an
intolerable extent not seen elsewhere in Europe. The preference for
certain occupations also gives us an interesting insight into the
spiritual nature of Jewry.
The following figures show how much critical occupations in Germany
have been infiltrated.
112,188 Jews, or 58.8%, far more than half, are employed in the area
of "commerce and transportation, including restaurants and taverns,"
but only 17.11% (3,248,145) of the population as a whole. In the area
of "industry and craft work, including mining and construction,"
19,318 Jews (25.85%) were employed, including 31.82% of foreigners.
For the population as a whole, the figure was 40.94% (7,771,799).
The figures in the field of "public administration, the judiciary, the
army and navy, churches, legal professionals and the independent
professions." 11,324 Jews were employed there, or 5.94% , over against
921,048 (4.85%) in the general population..."
In 1925, 0.81% of Jews were active as civil servants and the army and
navy, as opposed to 2.3% of the general population. In the church,
religious occupations, the legal system and the other independent
professions, the Jewish percentage is 4.3% as opposed to 2% of the
general population. This shows that the Jews are over-represented when
compared to the general population, particularly in the independent
professions.
The percentage of the Jewish population in government positions may
seem less than that of the general population, but the difference is
not as great as the figures first suggest. The most recent figures,
not yet entirely complete, suggest that a not insignificant number of
them are baptized Jews or dissidents formerly of the Jewish faith who
denied their Jewishness to gain an official position.
4.35% of Jews are employed in the medical and health care system,
including welfare, and 2.0% of foreign Jews. The figure for the
general population is 1.88%. The Jewish percentage is thus 2 1/2 times
as high as that of the general population.
In summary, Jewish occupational patterns differ from those of the rest
of the population. Jewry seems to have an aversion to agricultural
work, industrial labor and crafts. They are greatly over-represented
in commerce and transportation, including the entire banking system.
They are also over-represented in the independent professions and the
health care system. These figures alone demonstrate a clear difference
between the native German population and alien Jewry.
Very similar conditions prevail in all Western European nations and
also in North America, since Jews have spread throughout the world in
areas with growing industry and in cities that are centers of economic
and financial power. It is not true, as is often claimed, that the Jew
was systematically forced into commerce by the laws of the various
nations; rather, commerce particularly suits the Jew's nature. This is
supported by Dr. Arthur Ruppin, a scholar respected by the Jews. He
writes in his book The Jews of the Present (2nd edition, Cologne and
Leipzig, 1911, p. 45):
"Thanks to their significant commercial gifts (!), the Jews soon
enjoyed great success in commerce and industry. For 2000 years they
have seemed predestined to work in commerce. It is false to claim, as
some do, that Jews became merchants primarily because the Christians
denied them other occupations during the Middle Ages. The Jews did not
become merchants in Europe, rather they entered the profession in
growing numbers ever since the Babylonian Captivity in Syria, Egypt
and Babylon [because they dislike labor and prefer to have others work
for them! The Editor]. In Palestine until the dispersion they did live
primarily by agriculture. In the Diaspora, there was hardly anywhere
that the Jews lived by agriculture. The Middle Ages did not make them
into merchants. It only affirmed legally that which history had
already established. It is after all the rule that economic laws
generally do not create new conditions, but only legalize and regulate
that which already exists. The law would never have limited the Jews
to commerce in Europe if they had not already immigrated primarily as
merchants..."
Nearly all national economists agree that the Jews owe their role as
merchants not to chance, but to their excellent abilities as
merchants. As W. Sombart wrote: "The Jewish race is by nature the
incarnation of the capitalism-mercantile spirit." (Der moderne
Kapitalismus, Vol. 2, p. 349. Leipzig, 1902). Many others agree..."
"Similarly differences in the relative proportion of Jews by the
self-employed are evident in the medical field, which employs 0.5% of
the general population but 2.8% of the Jews, nearly six times as many.
Similar statistics are found in the cultural area (theater, film,
radio, education, teaching, etc.). The 0.4% of the general population
are employed there, 2.6% of the Jews, also about six times as many.
In the area of public administration and the judiciary, the percentage
of Jews in high positions is 2.0%, over against 1.3% of the general
population, nearly twice as high. The significance of these figures
becomes clear that when one realizes that the 2.3% of professional
Jews in public administration and the judiciary are in a branch where
the Jewish percentage of employees is only 0.81%. That means that the
Jews are especially represented in the important positions that
influence the whole government and leading branches of the economy.."
"The statistics may be interesting. The Jewish workers included 11,406
in industry, 2,220 in commerce and transportation, and 726 in
agriculture.
The following figures show most clearly the different social structure
of Jewry in Prussia over against the general population, and reveal
clearly Jewry's leading role in public life:.."

"On 19 May 1933 Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave an interview to
Bernard Ridder, an American journalist for the New York State
Newspaper. Discussing the Jewish Question in Germany, he said: "Should
I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the
Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim
to Bolshevism out of desperation?"
Can the justice of his words be doubted when one recalls that,
according to the Prussian census of 16 June 1925 6.9% of all
independent pharmacists, 17.9% of all independent physicians, 4.8% of
all independent artists, 27% of all independent attorneys, 4.6% of
editors, 11% of theater directors, 7.5% of actors, and 14.8% of all
independent dentists were Jews! And these huge figures when the Jews
were only 1% of the population! Is that anything other than a
Jewdification of our entire cultural system?! And what would these
figures look like if one had had the ability to include baptized Jews
and dissidents?..."

"Berlin is the Jewish metropolis in Germany. The process of
Jewdification is considerably further along. That is understandable,
since one is in the immediate vicinity of the protective arms of
democracy and social democracy, where developments can occur
unhindered. Thus in Berlin on 16 June 1925 32.2% of the pharmacists
were Jews, as were 49.9% of the physicians, 7.5 of the graphic
artists, 50.2% of the attorneys, 8.5% of the editors, 14.2% of the
directors and theater heads, 12.3% of the actors and 37.5% of the
dentists.
These figures cry out for legal limitations on Jewry, and it is
surprising that former governments did not take the appropriate action
to tell the Jews "this far and no further."
The Jewish influence gave the rest of the world an entirely false
impression of the nature of the German people. Inside the Reich, they
poisoned the soul of the people, and all social and political
relationships. Until the national uprising, the leaders of the
National Socialist movement were persecuted, defamed and suppressed by
a system that was a willing tool in the hands of a foreign and
different race. The national revolution freed the German people from
this foreign influence, which had also dominated and ruined the German
press and public life in significant ways.
He who wants to understand the German revolution of 1933 must
understand that it had this goal: 'Germany must be governed by Germans
for Germans.' The central idea of the National Socialist revolution
was the longing of the German people to once more be master in every
area of its own life. As a great, confident people, we demand only
this of the other peoples: that they permit us, as their equals, to
govern ourselves as we wish and find our own way to happiness (Reich
Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick)..."

"The Jewdification of our colleges and universities over the years has
reached almost frightening proportions. We begin with a publication
from 1931. Karl Hoppmann, in his volume "On the State of Jewdification
in the Academic professions" found the following figures:
1. University of Berlin:
Medical faculty . . . . over 50%
Philosophical faculty . . . . 25%
2. University of Göttingen, 32% of the professors were Jewish:
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 23.0%
3. University of Breslau
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
4. University of Frankfurt (Main)
Legal Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55.0%
Philosophical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0%
Mathematics and Natural Sciences . . . 28.0%
Medical faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0%
Jewry has a dominating role on the stock exchange. The board of the
Berlin stock exchange is almost exclusively Jewish. In the various
committees, the percentage of the Jewish race is sometimes many times
as high as the Aryan. The committees include:
That means that 117 or 147 members are Jews, or nearly 80%.
The extent of the Jewdification of German theater and film is evident
from 1931 figures. Of 234 theater directors, 118 (50.4%) were Jews, 92
(39.3%) were non-Jewish.
Berlin led in this area as well, with 23 of 29 theater directors (80%)
Jewish.
The situation in film is similar. The Viennese Catholic periodical
"Schönere Zukunft," which certainly cannot be accused of
anti-Semitism, wrote the following in its 3 February 1929 issue:
"The percentage of Jewry in today's film industry is so high, at least
by us in Germany, that there is only a tiny part left for Christian
firms."

Jewry has long sought political influence as well. This formerly
happened in covert ways, mostly through direct or indirect control of
money matters. Nearly every noble once had his financial Jew. Since
1848, the birth of political parties in Germany, Jewry has openly
sought to become a political power. The Jew Marx was the founder of
Marxist doctrine, the Jew Lassalle was the founder of the Social
Democratic Party. The founders of the Independent Social Democratic
Party of Germany were the Jews Bernstein, Haase, Kautsky, Hilferding,
Cohn, Davidsohn, Simon, Rosenfeld, Eisner, Levi, etc. Carl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemberg were the leaders of the Communist Party, and
recently the Jews Rosenfeld and Seydewitz founded the Socialist
Workers Party. Jews sat in the press offices and the various editorial
offices of party newspapers, and above all in the various
parliamentary factions..."

"We think it necessary to mention that the Communist wave that
threatened to destroy Germany politically, economically and
intellectually can primarily be traced back to Jewry.
Is it any wonder that the Jew is arrogant? The greater the Jewish
influence the more secure they feel, and the more ominously and
clearly their character and goals becomes clear: Pride, intolerance
and superiority on the one hand, a drive for world domination on the
other. Several pointed Jewish statements are examples:
Hochmut: The familiar "Dorfgeschichte"-Auerbach says: "We Jews are the
most intelligent race." "We are the chosen ones," says Dr. Berhard
Cohn (Jüdisch-Politische Streitfragen, 20, 22). He continues: "We may
carry our head high and demand particular respect. We must not only be
treated equally, but better. We deserve the particular respect of
other peoples."
Rabbi Dr. Rulf wrote a book ("Aruchas bar-Ammni," Israel's Healing,
Frankfurt a. M. 1883) in which he says: "The Jewish people is a
blessing for all peoples. The blessing has followed on the heels of
the Jews. A whole world lives from the Jews, who feed everyone, and
everywhere spread wealth and pleasure, comfort and prosperity. Only
the commerce of the Jews creates value. Work alone does not do that.
Half of the world's population would starve without the Jews."
The Jew Dr. Duschak wrote: "The world could not exist without the
Jews." The well-known Jew Sacher-Masoch explained the hatred of
anti-Semites against the Jews in this way: It is the same hatred a
Negro feels against the whites because of their superiority.
That the Jews even went so far as to suggest to Bismark that he make
the Jewish Day of Atonement a national holiday is certainly no sign of
modesty.
Intolerance: The Jew Klausner (Society, edited by Conrad, Volume 12)
wrote: "Anti-Semitism and criminality are nearly the same thing. There
are criminals who were not anti-Semites, but no anti-Semites who were
not criminals."
The work by Dr. E. Fuchs. "The Future of the Jews," (Berlin,
Philo-Verlag, 1924) judges our greatest historians, Hartmann and
Treitschke, who see the Jews as our misfortune: "Men blinded by
prejudice and hatred. Small, tiny men."
World Domination: The Jewish attorney Maurthner in Vienna said back in
the 1880's: "It is not just a matter of fighting anti-Semitism. We
want to oppose it with Jewish domination!"
They made the attempt. If the German people had not recovered their
senses at the last moment, and if they had not had a Fuehrer and
Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who recognized the danger and woke the
German people, we would have fallen into slavery. As we have already
noted, the Jew has always known how to rouse sympathy when things were
rough for him. Consider this report from the meeting of the PEN Club
in Ragusa at the end of May of last year: "Schalom Asch in his keynote
address noted that the suffering of the Jews in Germany had aroused
the sympathy of the entire world. Only the German government remained
untouched. He claimed the Jews has given Germany its deepest thoughts,
its most beautiful songs, its greatest poets, artists and
philosophers. Today one had crucified them in Germany and covered them
with their own blood." Mr. Schalom Asch began crying in the midst of
these outrageous lies. He spoke in the hope that his words would be
heard for the sake of justice and humanity throughout the world.
The Jew Asch cries! The German people are not moved. They want no
torture or persecution, but also no unjustified sympathy, only
justice! Remember always the worlds of Field Marshall Moltke: "The Jew
is a state within the state." Remember also the works of our great
historian Mommsen: "In antiquity too the Jew was the ferment of
cosmopolitanism and national decomposition." And remember Goethe: "The
Israelites have never done much; they possess few virtues, and most of
the deficiencies of other peoples!"
The Racial Question has an important role in the laws of other
nations, though other peoples and races are affected than in the
German Reich. It is in no way new or unusual that the German Reich is
active in this area. Contrary to opinions that surface here and there,
our laws are in no way directed against the Jewish religion, its
practice, or the freedom of the Jewish faith.
The German Reich has done nothing but introduce constitutional
legislation to provide the kind of civil service necessary to
guarantee the secure administration of the Reich. The laws do not
render it impossible for a citizen of a foreign state to become a
civil servant. Indeed, if he is appointed to such a position, he
receives full citizenship in the Reich. German civil servants should
however be of Aryan descent. The so-called Aryan Law requires that
each civil servant be of German blood. Since the vast majority of
non-Aryan civil servants were Jews, the first guidelines to the law
paid particular attention to those who were members of the Jewish
race. But we did not simply throw out the non-Aryan civil servants,
but retired them with honor and a pension. The people's state could
hardly proceed in a more legal and mild manner. Germany did not want
to attack Jewry wildly, rather only deal with its results, is clear
from the fact that the Law of 7 April 1933 left untouched all
non-Aryan civil servants who had been appointed before 1 August 1914,
and by the fact that the private sphere not affected. Some complain
that the law extends to half and quarter Aryans. The answer is that
the foreign influence in the civil service had grown to such a
dangerous extent that it was almost impossible for young Germans to
enter these professions." (Reich Minister of the Interior Dr.
Frick..."


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Alric Knebel
2005-06-17 03:23:16 UTC
Permalink
I've got shit for brains.
Yes.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
Topaz
2005-06-17 23:08:19 UTC
Permalink
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:

"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
It may be rather out of date but it still explains why things are the
way they are.

"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"

"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."

"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."

"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."

"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."

"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."

"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."

"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."

"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."

"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."

" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."

"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."

"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."

"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Alric Knebel
2005-06-18 00:29:43 UTC
Permalink
My favorite book is called "The Flea
Circus." It's about some children who
put fleas in a test tube until the fleas
learn to stop jumping. Then they dump
the fleas out into a little rubberband
ring. The fleas just stay in the ring.
I get a lot of my ideas from that
book.
I can see how.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
Topaz
2005-06-18 15:34:49 UTC
Permalink
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University

Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...

The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
cop welfare
2005-06-16 20:06:20 UTC
Permalink
also, we left most of the normal troops in the camps to the tender
mercies of the SS who filled a power vacuum left by the us guards who
opted for the least bother when keeping the peace.
N***@YAHOO.COM
2005-06-17 16:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ADOLF LIBERAL
German POWS were brought the USA during WWII
at a rate of 10,000 per week
10,000 per week! Until there were a few 100 thousand
of them. They were transported in the HOLDS of ships
with NO BATHROOMS, No Beds, and little food.
And then they were sent to the camps.
Did you know that we had 500 POW Camps right here in
the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.
Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..
THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people
entropy
2005-06-17 19:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ADOLF LIBERAL
German POWS were brought the USA during WWII
at a rate of 10,000 per week
10,000 per week! Until there were a few 100 thousand
of them. They were transported in the HOLDS of ships
with NO BATHROOMS, No Beds, and little food.
And then they were sent to the camps.
Did you know that we had 500 POW Camps right here in
the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.
Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..
THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over 6
million innocent people
We didn't know that until after the war, stupid.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
s***@my-deja.com
2005-06-21 21:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ADOLF LIBERAL
German POWS were brought the USA during WWII
at a rate of 10,000 per week
10,000 per week! Until there were a few 100 thousand
of them. They were transported in the HOLDS of ships
with NO BATHROOMS, No Beds, and little food.
And then they were sent to the camps.
Did you know that we had 500 POW Camps right here in
the USA... where they never had it so good ever before
in their lives.
Their High Ranking Officers lived in Private bungaloos and
were given Wine, Beer, special foods and other luxuries..
THAT is how we treated the NAZI'S who murdered over
6 million innocent people
That's only the Jews. If you count the Russian POWs, Roma (gypsies),
homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and non-cooperative Christians (like
Dietrich Bonhoffer) who died in Nazi camps and prisons, the number is
more like 12 million.

Yes, we treated German prisoners of war and Nazis accused of war crimes
better than we now treat the detainees at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. And
yes, we put Nazis accused of war crimes on trial and allowed them due
process instead of incarcerating them indefinitely, as we do now.
Imagine that.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...