Was Churchill anti-Semitic?

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

No, I don't advocate might makes right.

It is a practical reality of the world, the primitive world, but not the civilized world....that might makes right in the sense that the winners make the rules...but that is not my concept of "right."

Right now, I list the most dangerous threat to the USA is our own internal weakness of our society, i.e. greed, people living on credit beyond their means, corruption, lack of real protection of constitution, lack of trust in our institutions, illegal aliens, exporting of jobs overseas, weakening of labor unions who protect workers, corporate power and lobby, too much power in executive branch, etc.

Second biggest threat is China.

Terrorism is actually way down the list...

I don't see much value in playing who is the worst offender of human rights. We are in bed with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, nearly all the major human rights defenders, because corporate profit is now the God of America, which is why we are eventually doomed.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Interesting.

Sounds as if you advocate might is right.

Since the Tri-Axis was "beatable" it was a worthy fight by the U.S.

Since Stalin was unbeatable it's proper that we fought his enemies.

If one were to list Russia, China, Italy, Japan and Germany on a list, how would you categorize them in order of human rights, military oppression, social mores, justice ect.

My guess would be Russia (enemy of the Tri-Axis) and China (enemy of Japan) would top the list of "bad guys".

The nations that the U.S. and Britain fought would be on the "good guy" list.

Peculiar?

 

[Publisher]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

No, I don't think we went after the wrong enemy.

General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower stated in a 1950 speech given in Dallas, Texas that as Supreme Commander in Europe during World War Two he made it a habit of asking American soldiers why they were fighting the Germans and 90% answered him..."They had no idea.

Source:
The Iron Curtain Over America,
John Beaty, 1960, P. 60,
Chestnut Mountain Press.

I wonder what the response of American soldiers would be if they where confronted with the same question in Iraq.


I think that some good patriots in this country, who opposed Iraq, should try to reconsider their view on the subject of World War II. The deception the US used to enter that conflict was as bad as the lies used to justify Iraq - and by the same people.

An article, published in Germany in 1944 by the ""Evil Nazis"", shows clearly that Germany wanted nothing but peace with the United States. Unfortunately, this wish was not mutually shared by the US due to the Zionist control that sadly still holds sway to this day. Read the article below.

What is Americanism?

When one speaks of America, millions of Germans think of their relatives who either recently or long ago left their German homeland to seek their fortune in the "New World." When someone succeeded in quickly making a lot of money in America, people said he had made his fortune. The result was that the "rich uncle" in America was envied, and his nephews and nieces were encouraged to join the fortune-seeker. Seeking fortunes in America led to Germany losing people, and the American continent received many people whose contributions are particularly clear in the agricultural and technical fields. That these people and their descendants now give great help to the enemies of Germany in this Second World War is a tragic fact.

The family ties between hundreds of thousands of German families and their American relatives led many to think that America would never join a second war against Germany. Now that that has happened, many Germans still believe that America will never allow Bolshevism to conquer and destroy Germany. Recent events have proven how false and dangerous this idea is. One has to be foolish or irredeemably stupid to believe that anything good can come to Europe from the land of presumed opportunity. That that did not happen after the First World War, and will not happen after the second. The Jews have made America what it is today: a nation raped by the Jews, a nation whose 130,000,000 people of many colors and races have been forced into helping the Jews achieve world domination! The descendants of European immigrants do not govern the United States of America today. The foreign and domestic policies of the country are made by the Jews and their lackeys. The American people wanted peace, but were maneuvered into war by Delano Roosevelt, a tool of World Jewry, who himself has Jewish blood in his veins. It was the same in World War I, when the blackmailed adulterer Woodrow Wilson, also a tool of the Jews , maneuvered it into the war.

Cordell Hull, one of the most prominent Jewish lackeys, controls the foreign policy of the United States of America. Hull is a particular favorite of the Jews. He was the one who stood alongside as Roosevelt lied to the American people and said that no American mother needed to fear that her son would fight in Europe. He and Roosevelt did everything they could to bring the United States into the Second World War. It is claimed that Cordell Hull is not a Jew. His appearance however leaves no doubt that the Devil is working its mischief in him and is producing that spirit that is typically Jewish. Perhaps it is this concealed Jewish blood that enabled him to overcome his horror when he married the baptized full Jewess Frances Witz. She is the daughter of the Jew Isaac Witz, who as is well known gained his wealth in ways that almost led him to prison or the electric chair. The New York Jewish newspaper "The American Hebrew" has this to say on 13 February 1942 about the Jewish spouse of the American Secretary of State Cordell Hull:

She is a tireless suporter of all efforts to help mankind.

It is an open secret that Jewish supremacists do not work, but rather let others work for them. The "tireless work" of the wife of the American Secretary of State must therefore be a different kind of work than is done by working people. What is meant by saying that the Jewess Hull works untiringly in "all efforts to benefit mankind?" It is written in the Jewish law book, the Talmud, that only the Jew is human, that Gentiles are only animals. When the Jews speak of humanity, they mean only the totality of Jews. The Jewess Hull is therefore a "tireless worker" in the service of all the Jews. What her "efforts to benefit mankind" are has become clear through the protocols of the 1897 World Jewish Congress in Basel. It concluded that the Jews must work to destroy the national characteristics of other peoples through revolution, in order to make possible world domination by the Jews. In other words, the Jewess Hull is praised by "The American Hebrew" for being a tireless worker to establish world Jewish domination for the benefit of the Jews. The organized American air and ground pirates, who even call themselves murderers, are assisting in establishing this Jewish domination. The Jewish ties of the American Secretary of State are also evidenced by the fact that his sister married a Jew.

During Hull's term in office — he has served as Secretary of State since 4 March 1933 — the American State Department has been completely judified. The offices of the American State Department are filled with Jews both young and old. The diplomatic representatives of the United States of America to other nations are almost entirely Jews. For example, the ambassador in Paris from 1933 to 1936 was the Jew P. Strauss. The ambassador in Moscow after 1933 was the Jew Bullitt (after 1936 he was in Paris). The Jew Sack has been ambassador to Costa Rica since 1933, the Jew Schönfeld ambassador to Finland since 1937, the Jew Steinhardt (from 1939-1942 ambassador in Moscow) has been ambassador in Ankara since 1942. Cordell Hull's assistant secretary in the State Department is the Jew Pasvolsky.

World Jewry has made clear its thanks to the Jewish lackeys President Delano Roosevelt and his secretary of state Cordell Hull. Both Roosevelt and Hull received the highest honor World Jewry has to offer: "The American Hebrew Medal." It is the medal that World Jewry awards only for particularly valuable services. The president of the United States and his secretary of state were made honorary Hebrews. Cordell Hull received yet another honor from the Jewish weekly "The American Hebrew." It ran a long article in praise of the Jewish lackey Hull in its 13 February 1942 issue. He was praised as Roosevelt's "diplomatic chief of staff," as "one of the greatest statesmen of the world," one who had earned a place in the ranks of "immortal Americans." He was even called a "saint in serge." Never before has a Gentile, a "Goy" been praised, even deified, so unanimously by Jewry as this Jewish-related, Jewish-thinking, honorary Hebrew, the Jewish lackey Cordell Hull. This proves what Professor Werner Sombart wrote on page 43 of his book "The Jews and Economic Life":

One can rightly say that the United States owes what it is entirely to the Jews: that is, its American nature. What we call Americanism to a large degree is nothing other than the influence of the Jewish spirit.


"The influence of the Jewish spirit" today dominates the United States of North America. "The influence of the Jewish spirit" is what drove the American people into the disaster of the First World War and forced them also in this Second World War to sacrifice enormous amounts of its blood. "The influence of the Jewish spirit" will destroy the New World, unless a Savior appears to rescue it from the abyss before which it stands.

By Julius Streicher

Streicher died on the gallows at Nuremberg solely for publishing a paper critical of the Zionism. Despite not having been part of the German government during the war, nor having any role in the German war effort or in the concentration camps.

 

[Publisher]

Here is another article on this subject by the same author. Written in 1944, it could perfectly well have been written in 2007.

The source: "Die Gefahr des Amerikanismus," Das Schwarze Korps, 14 March 1944, pp. 1-2.

The Danger of Americanism
When we speak of young Europe and its young nations, we contrast them to the senile world of dying liberalism which, under the leadership of Jewry, is once more gathering all its material resources in an attempt to forever subject the world to the power of money under the domination of those who have it. They want to perpetuate the social injustice they find so comfortable. More is involved than differences between ages and generations, however.

Our camp includes not only those who are young enough to topple the old and build a new world. It includes all those spiritual forces that see the new in the collapse of the old, who want to build a new future with new ways and means.

The triumph of the Copernican worldview over the unfruitful dogma of the past, the triumph of science over empty faith, was a victory of youth. They followed the shining examples of their predecessors. The youth have always been the battering ram that helped bring the national idea to fruition. The discovery of the laws of inheritance has been the occasion and guidepost of a new youth movement that builds on the eternal culture-building values of race and blood. They lead from the deadly and destructive lethargy of materialism to the new world of tomorrow.

Today it is as it always was in times of revolution. Those fighting for the new have more to offer the youth than those who live in yesterday, who hold to what they have grown accustomed to, even if it has long since become rigid, empty and stifling. We offer the youth the freedom to develop their nation, even in the case of smaller nations. We offer them room for creative fantasy, the opportunity to transform great thoughts to reality outside the lecture hall. We offer the realization of dreams on a world scale, a common Germanic will, a common European will. We fill the spiritual vacuum left by liberalism with the magic of a worldview that draws self-confidence and meaning to life from race and the blood of one's ancestors.

What does old England have to offer its youth to justify the war's requirements? It cannot even begin to solve its own social problems, much less offer anything to other peoples. Where is there a healthy youth that is on fire for Bolshevism? It was a danger only during the spiritual interregnum that followed the First World War. In the face of an inadequate yesterday, it was the only force, the only revolutionary movement, available, and anything was better than nothing.

Today Bolshevism may have reached its material and organizational pinnacle on the bent backs of its devotees, but as a spiritual movement it is finished. The crass incompetence of its methods and goals have proven it to be the very epitome of capitalist slavery.

The only remaining alternative is Americanism. As strange as it may sound, it is the only serious competition to National Socialism's racial worldview in the struggle for the youth, in the struggle for the future of humanity. In the end, however, it is only a forerunner of Bolshevism.

Americanism is certainly not a spiritual movement, nor is it a worldview that it is possible to oppose at the intellectual level. Its political beneficiaries have tried in recent years to give it, if not a face, at least a program or a goal: "the American Century." It is a collection of empty promises of the type democratic orators have always made — but this time on a world scale. There is nothing in them to excite a reasonable man. But that is exactly the point of Americanism! The key is not what it promises, but what it cannot promise. The key is not what it demands of men, but what gives them.

That would not matter if the world's youth were of the sound character that develops from racially conscious lines, tradition-rich families, good upbringing and close camaraderie. But that is not the way things are. The good fairy will not give youth the values they will need in life. The racially sound youth can be inspired by virtue of his blood. But the blood does not tell him what should inspire him. He can be misled into serving a bad cause. He can squander his enthusiasm if he matures in a spiritual vacuum. One should not underestimate the danger of Americanism, or its seductive power. It offers devotion to a culture of nothingness, independence, lack of restraint, a freedom from all obligation, from all honor, from all consideration.

We do not wish to deny this culture of nothingness its right to exist. It can even, rightly used, be good, just as it is sometimes a pleasure to do nothing. Should a German soldier happen to find a portable record player and jazz records in the deserted quarters of British or American soldiers, he does not smash them against the wall. Instead, he takes them along and thinks he has a great treasure. We don't want to suggest excessive cultural disaster here. There are times when he wants a vacation from himself, from us, from the whole world. He needs to relax, and certainly does not wish to ponder intellectual matters. Nothing is better suited to take him out of the normal world than the complete nonsense of this hot music, this cacophony of animal howls, wild instruments and foot-stomping Negro lust. It takes him away from human concerns back to the depths of pre-human apedom, returning him to the time when people did not need to think because there was no past and no future. Its effect is like that of alcohol, which turns normally rational men into shouting, destructive children. That can sometimes be good for serious and intelligent men. And the soldier certainly does not forget his German mission, nor does he lose his character or honor when he occasionally spends an hour relaxing to entertaining music. He is immune to the danger of confusing this rhythmic pig grunting with good music, much less art or culture. It cannot meet his higher standards.

Others, however, are not as immune. That is what those who deny any appeal of Americanism forget....

Continued below:

 

[Publisher]

Certainly there is no danger that our young boys and girls will fall into sexual frenzy while listening to some Jewish lout blowing on a saxophone. One can introduce them to the high priests of the American jitterbug with no worries at all. At most they will laugh. Our young Luftwaffe aides and working girls would hardly join in a dance marathon. And the winning couple running through the arena in tattered, sweaty clothes would receive not applause, but a beating. But that is our youth. They are made of different stuff, and grew up in a world in which dignity comes from doing one's duty, and both are seen not as a burden but as the joy of life.

That may be self-evident to us, but it is not so to others. Whole nations behave in ways not guided by clear tasks. They are only individuals, parents, teachers, tribes and groups, able to lead them out of error and confusion into a clear world of meaning. We may not forget that during the tragic years following the First World War, a significant part of our youth too fell under the appeal of Americanism, waving their limbs in the Shimmy and the Charleston because there was nothing else to do.

We sometimes fail to see that there are young people in Europe today — often from the so-called better classes — who not only do not stand within the camp of young Europe, but even mock or scorn it. Many of us simply cannot understand how there can be a mass meeting at a Norwegian university protesting those who are risking their lives in the east for the freedom and security of their native land, or how Swedish students, even if they do not jump to the side of their Finnish brothers, do not at least follow their struggle with respect.

These young men surely are not consciously supporting the plans of Stalin and Roosevelt. Thank God, this small part of Europe's youth is not a politically aware counterpart to the European youth defending young Europe in the east. Those who think politically and act from conviction demonstrate it through their actions. The others have followed the comfortable path that leads from political thinking to Americanism.

That is the political danger of Americanism. It leads those who fall prey to it away from political thinking, away from responsibility, even to their nation, away from decency, even from national decency.

The American lad may use fine phrases to say that the nationalist is his political enemy. In reality, however, he fights a man who makes uncomfortable and difficult demands on him, the man who recognizes the fate of the nation as his fate, who respects the woman who will become the mother of his children, who wants to be a model, who always acts as if the eyes of the nation are upon him. The American lad feels his "freedom" restricted by such behavior. He wants to keep the hot music spinning on the record player, not be reminded that he must work as well as relax, that he must not only enjoy, but also honor the dignity of his nation.

That is neither comfortable nor pleasant. It is pleasant to talk slang and enjoy a loose moral life with those of like mind. Americanism has its delights, and he who is captivated by them not only sticks his head in the sand, he also gets some pleasure. It is nice to be able to dismiss all criticism of a too hearty enjoyment of life with the claim that one is defending human rights against Nazi brutality.

Americanism is not a logical development. It certainly does not spring from the descendants of the Virginia colonists with their Prussian sense of honor and duty, nor from the healthy farmers and citizens of the Midwest. It did not triumph easily against the often overdone moralism of Puritan circles. Its power grew along with that of Jewry. As is the case of everything that follows the orders of Jewry, Americanism's lack of culture and morality, its freedom-promising "Century of the Child," is nothing but a concealed way of ruining the youth.

Americanism is a splendid method of depoliticization. The Jews have used jazz and movies, magazines and smut, gangsterism and free love, and every perverse desire, to keep the American people so distracted that they pay no attention to their own fate. Even in politics, they are no longer influenced by the head, only by what is under the belt.

The Jews would not be Jews if they did not want to apply such tested methods to the entire world. Nearly every nation in the world faced or is facing the need to combat Americanism, a generally pleasant retreat to a barbaric lack of culture.

The logical consequences of Americanism will help the world combat it. The fact that 60% of American crimes are committed by children 13 years old and under and that rapes increased three-fold between 1942 and 1943 proves that Americanism has reached its limits. It will provoke a counter-movement that, just as in Europe, can only be political.

Americanism is not merely a moral-cultural form of degeneration, nor can it be combated by nonpolitical means. It has already been defeated when one digs it up by its roots and sees there plainly the words: "Made in Israel."

 

[spect8or]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:



One often hears how the U.S. and the allies 'saved" Europe from Hitler. Residents of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Albania and others would beg to differ......

And not simply because of post-war communism either. Romania, Hungary, Albania and Bulgaria were wartime (German) pact members, and if Ukranians were polled, I'm sure we'd find many/most of them in sympathy with Germany, too.

Anyway, what has been the point of "saving" Europe from the Germans only to hand it over to the Arabs and Africans? We incessantly hear how if it hadn't been for American involvement Europeans would all be "speaking German" now. Well, so what? Speaking German is hardly as ghastly a fate as enduring Islamization and German polkas would certainly be preferable to muezzin calls.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from traderNik:


And I am by no means referring only to the Holocaust, which by itself proves that Hitler and a few of his generals and administrators were crazier than a bunch of shithouse rats.

If that's your only proof of Hitler's madness then perhaps you might have to reconsider your views of his sanity. For if the Holocaust -- defined as the extermination of millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers -- did not occur, then your claims of his madness would seem to be baseless.

Now I know from previous exchanges with you that you consider the very fact of my doubting the holocaust a sign of moral failure, but I am now calling you on that: claims of extermination by gassing are, at bottom, no different to any other historical claims; either they rest on a foundation of historical evidence or they do not. In this sense, checking the reliability of a historical claim cannot be immoral. The holocaust must be subjected to the same standards of historical scrutiny no matter how many people howl in protest.

As a simple introduction into the reasons one might have for reviewing or casting doubt on holocaust claims is the following case. An inscription at Auschwitz used to read that the Germans killed four million Jews there. Some time later, that number was revised down to one million. The total number of Jews said to have been killed during the holocaust, however, remained six million. Presumably, that six million was arrived at by summing the murder counts at various camps. So Auschwitz + Treblinka + Sobibor etc = 6 million. Now, if Auschwitz is revised down to 1 million, shouldn't the total number of deaths similarly be revised down to 3 million? Apparently not. Why, though, was never made clear. In fact, it was never even made clear why 1 not 4 million died at Auschwitz.

In fact, nothing is ever made clear when it comes to the particulars of the holocaust.

In the early 80s, in light of the "Faurisson Affair", in which revisionist Robert Faurisson debated a French-Jewish historian in the pages of Le Monde, a Jewish organization put out a statement, signed by leading historians, deploring the offenses caused to the sensibilities of survivors of the genocidal Nazi machine that killed six million Jews and five million others. (I'll dig up the reference if you like.) Five million others. Nothing before or since has been heard about these five million others and it is difficult to avoid the impression that those historians would have signed anything the Jewish organization put in front of them if only it would get people to stop being so damn critical of the holocaust.

But I am digressing. I simply wished to highlight some simple reasons why one might wish to investigate the historicity of the alleged holocaust. Absent satisfactory explanations to the questions raised above, it would seem bizarre to label someone immoral for simply being skeptical where skepticism is clearly warranted.