So the Allies were better in treating the Germans?

Allies starve millions of Germans as punishment.
by Christian Borleis

As soon the Second World War ended in 1945, Canada and the United States began shipping food to the hundreds of millions of people who were facing starvation as a result of the war. Unprecedented in world history, this massive program fulfilled the highest ideals for which the Western Allies had fought. Their generosity seemed to have no limit. They fed former enemies Italy and Japan as well as a new enemy, the Soviet Union. Only Germany was left out.

It is well known that for the next fifty years the Allies hanged and incarcerated Nazis for their alleged crimes the murder of six million Jews and their alleged criminal conduct of war.

The crimes against the Jews seemed to be well documented.

The crimes concerning German conduct of war was a judiciary concoction, which in fact didn't differ from conduct of war by the victorious Allies. The verdict of guilt was a historical requisite of hanging the political and military leadership but also to justify the ravaging of the vanquished enemy with methods of so-called 'democratic liberation', that is with rape, plunder, murder, in short soldiery.

Far worse than the crimes against the Jews and the pretended general war crimes by the Germans was in fact the National Socialist ideology, a philosophy, which was intolerable to the international bankers, because it threatened their monetary system. National Socialism stood against extreme capitalism of the West and the threatening communist revolution of Stalin's Russia in the East. Between those super powers National Socialism emerged, forged by a determent leader to liberate a demoralised country from the vassals of Versailles. The restored pride and national identity was reason enough why the Germans had to be broken and punished as a whole and be treated different to their Allies. The imposed starvation and humiliation was part of the rehabilitation program. The cruelty imposed on defeated Germany was nothing new to the Germans. They had experienced a hunger blockade after the World War I, which was to blackmail the German government to sign the infamous Versailles Treaty. During those eight months eight hundred thousand people died. Genocide was invented by the English in the Boer War 1902, reintroduced after WWI and WWII again.

What is not generally known is that these occupying Allied armies carved off 25 per cent of Germany's most fertile land (Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia and placed it under Russian and Polish control, forcible expelling about 12 million people into what remained Germany. It has also been forgotten that the Allies forbade emigration and kept millions of prisoners in forced-labour camps, changing the description of prisoner of war (P.O.) to 'demilitarised personals' to act within the Geneva Convention.

International charitable aid to Germany was banned for another year, then restricted for more than one year. When it was permitted, it came too late for millions of people.

In a plan devised by U.S. secretary of the treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr., the Allies "pastoralised" Germany. They slashed production of oil, tractors, steel and other products that has been essential to an industrial nation. They cut fertiliser production by 82 per cent. They undervalued German exports (which they controlled) depriving Germans of cash needed to buy food. And a large number of young male workers were kept in forced-labour camps for years. During the next three years following the end of the war, Germany's industrial production fell by 75 per cent.

The loss of so much fertile land and the drop in fertiliser supplies caused agricultural production to fall by 65 per cent. Sixty million people begun to starve in their huge prison.

The mass expulsions from one part of Germany to another, approved at the Allied victory conference in Potsdam in July and August, 1945, were enforced "with maximum of brutality," wrote British writer and philanthropist Victor Gollancz in his book, "Our Threatened Values" (1946).

In the West, the plan to dismantle German industrial capacity began at the British headquarters of general Dwight Eisenhower in August, 1944. Meeting with Mr. Morgenthau, Gen. Eisenhower prescribed a treatment for Germany that would be "good and hard," giving as his reason that "the Whole German populations a synthetic paranoid."

Mr. Morgenthau took a written version of their discussion to U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt and the British prime minister Winston Churchill when the two met in Quebec City in September, 1944. British foreign secretary Anthony Eden, U.S. secretary of state Corden Hull and U.S. secretary of war Henry L. Stimson all protested vigorously against the Morgenthau Plan because a pastoralised Germany could not feed itself. Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson told Roosevelt that about 20 million Germans would die if the plan were implemented.

Most historians say the Morgenthau Plan was abandoned after the protests, but Mr. Morgenthau himself said it was implemented.

In the New York Post for Nov. 24, 1947, he wrote, "The Morgenthau Plan for Germany... became part of the Potsdam Agreement, a solemn declaration of policy and undertaking for action.... signed by the United States of America, Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

With 13 per cent of Germany's heavy industry destroyed during the war, 3 per cent of heavy industry was dismantled after the war according to German statistics. But it was the Jewish World Organisation and the Zionist World Congress, which saved Germany from this fate of industrial destruction. It was thought that the Germans could be made to pay restitution for the enormous crime of Genocide on the Jews they had committed. In order to commit them to that task they would need to keep the remaining industry intact. As a consequence the Morgenthau Plan was abandoned in 1951 and replaced by the Marshall Plan.

In hindsight the German industrial capacity was restored to aid the new state of Israel. The Holocaust, true or imagined, paid dividend to Israel and the Jews.

The government of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer conducting a massive survey about the mass deaths of German prisoners of war in Allied camps with the result that some 1.4 million German prisoners had died in captivity. How many died in each camps was disputed by the two sides as each blamed the other for nearly all the deaths.

But the fall of the Soviet empire in 1989 provided a spectacular test of the truth: The KGB archives were opened for historical scrutiny and reports from KGB colonel I. Bulanov revealed that 450,600 Germans had died in Soviet camps. In addition, the KGB records show that the Soviets had also imprisoned hundreds of thousands of civilians, of whom many thousands died.

Documents of national archives in Ottawa, Moscow, Washington and Standford recently revealed that Allies not only destroyed most major industry, but also reduced German food production to the point that Germans received less food for several years than the Dutch had received under German occupation.

"From 1945 to the June 1948, one saw the probably collapse, disintegration and destruction of a whole nation." These were the words of the sober judgment of a U.S. Navy medical officer on the scene. Captain Albert Behnke stated that the ration set by the occupation Allies was 400 calories per day and in much of Germany in the three year period it was never more than 1000 calories. A comparison of the German censuses of 1946 and 1950 shows the effect of the food shortages. The 1950 census showed 5.7 million people fewer than there should have been according to the number of people recorded in the 1946 census, minus officially reported deaths, plus births and "immigrants" (people expelled from the east and returning prisoners) in the period from 1946 to 1950. The total tally of unacknowledged deaths among prisoners, refugees and non-expelled civilians comes to around nine million people between 1945 and 1950, far more than the number who died during the war itself. All of these deaths were surplus to those actually reported. More over, those deaths occurrence took place in peacetime while the world media did not bother to report about the fate of the starving Germans.

When we hear about Genocide we are instantly reminded of the Jewish Holocaust.

From the German point of view, the so-called Holocaust is a monopolised term of Hebrew definition, designed to enslave the German work force indefinitely for the benefit of Israel.

If in fact the number of 6 million Jews killed during the war were true, the number of Germans perished after the war, to repeat 'in peacetime', still outnumbers the Jews.

The question arises: where is the Holocaust Museum memorising the starved to death Germans?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Of course the author is writing the truth, but that doesn't change in any way the public image of WW2 fuelled by incessant hostile Jewish propaganda demonizing the Reich and its Leader, the dreaded Adolph Hitler: a closet homosexual who hated "gay people", an antisemite because a jewish girl rejected him, an impotent who raped his niece... They have NOTHING against him and they know it: he was virtuous in both words and action and in utter control of his drives, scrupulously moral, highly cultured, highly intelligent, faithful and loving with a well chosen woman (who was both beautiful and utterly devoted to him), kind with friends and merciless with enemies, combining the harmony of pen and sword with an unusually calm and friendly temper. Along with Roman emperor Octavian, he stands out as one of the greatest leaders of our world, a person beyond reproach in pursuit of rightful glory, embodying the highest ideals of Aryan rulership. His reformation of a crumbling society based on firm Aryan principles has produced a world to whom we should always be in debt of recreating.

In the end:

"Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist." - Adolf Hitler

On the Jews and their Lies

A person who is unacquainted with the devil might wonder why they are so particularly hostile toward Christians. They have no reason to act this way, since we show them every kindness. They live among us, enjoy our shield and protection, they use our country and our highways, our markets and streets. Meanwhile our princes and rulers sit there and snore with mouths hanging open and permit the Jews to take, steal, and rob from their open money bags and treasures whatever they want. That is, they let the Jews, by means of their usury, skin and fleece them and their subjects and make them beggars with their own money. For the Jews, who are exiles, should really have nothing, and whatever they have must surely be our property. They do not work, and they do not earn anything from us, nor do we give or present it to them, and yet they are in possession of our money and goods and are our masters in our own country and in their exile. A thief is condemned to hang for the theft of ten florins, and if he robs anyone on the highway, he forfeits his head. But when a Jew steals and robs ten tons of gold through his usury, he is more highly esteemed than God himself.
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
___________________________________________________________________________
Although not an "anti-Semitic" book by any fashion, but rather an attack on Judaism, it still contains lots of usable materials which prove, if such things are needed, that hostile Jewish behavior has not changed over ages, nor did our worthless toleration of them while living in our midst. We have always given them preferential status: in Luther's time because they were "children of God", now because they are "victims of Holocaust".

A German in Luther's time was as worthless as it is today: he could be abused with impunity by his overlords, he had to work as a serf to feed a class of inbred idlers who used money borrowed from Jews to entertain their loathsome lifestyles. A Jew, however, was shielded by special laws and could NOT be abused without retaliation from his kinsmen, usually in the form of withdrawing financial support for the so-called "princes". In other words Germans, in their own land, held a much lower status than Jews, who were nothing but ungrateful foreigners.

Vatican irked by `blasphemous' Israel TV show

In the program, the host farcically denied Christian traditions — that Mary was a virgin and that Jesus walked on water — saying he would do so as a "lesson" to Christians who deny the Holocaust.

In the show, hosted by well-known Israeli comedian Lior Shlein, Mary is said to have become pregnant at 15, thanks to a schoolmate. It said Jesus could never have walked on water because "he was so fat he was ashamed to leave the house, let alone go to the Sea of Galilee with a bathing suit."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_israel

When Jews insult everyone else, it's called "freedom of speech". If one dares to respond, he's instantly labeled an "anti-semite" and consequently reviled by the UN-free press. In "democratic Europe" even the slightest insult to Jews sainthood is punished by prison, but when Jews provoke, not only are they justified, but they are even given prizes for their "courageous" statements.

Above all, notice how pope is IRKED when christian idols are thrashed, but OUTRAGED when holocaust is "minimized", leaving behind any doubt of who exactly is he worshipping...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad giving a glimpse of how politicians should be

SPIEGEL: There was great indignation in Germany when it became known that you might be coming to the soccer world championship. Did that surprise you?

Ahmadinejad: No, that’s not important. I didn’t even understand how that came about. It also had no meaning for me. I don’t know what all the excitement is about.

SPIEGEL: It concerned your remarks about the Holocaust. It was inevitable that the Iranian president’s denial of the systematic murder of the Jews by the Germans would trigger outrage.

Ahmadinejad: I don’t exactly understand the connection.

SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news that you may travel to Germany -- this causes an uproar. So you were surprised after all?

Ahmadinejad: No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active around the world, in Europe too. So I wasn’t surprised. We were addressing the German people. We have nothing to do with Zionists.

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don’t know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years’ historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans -- unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.

On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn’t take place, why then did this regime of occupation …

SPIEGEL: … You mean the state of Israel…

Ahmadinejad: … come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.

Ahmadinejad: We don’t want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact – we greatly regret this – that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don’t mean you, but rather the European governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.

SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.

SPIEGEL: Who is that supposed to be? Which researchers do you mean?

Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.

SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad: The mere fact that my comments have caused such strong protests, although I’m not a European, and also the fact that I have been compared with certain persons in German history indicates how charged with conflict the atmosphere for research is in your country. Here in Iran you needn’t worry.

SPIEGEL: Well, we are conducting this historical debate with you for a very timely purpose. Are you questioning Israel’s right to exist?

Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?

SPIEGEL: That’s just not the case. All peoples mourn the victims claimed by the Second World War, Germans and Russians and Poles and others as well. Yet, we as Germans cannot absolve ourselves of a special guilt, namely for the systematic murder of the Jews. But perhaps we should now move on to the next subject.

Ahmadinejad: No, I have a question for you. What kind of a role did today’s youth play in World War II?

SPIEGEL: None.

Ahmadinejad: Why should they have feelings of guilt toward Zionists? Why should the costs of the Zionists be paid out of their pockets? If people committed crimes in the past, then they would have to have been tried 60 years ago. End of story! Why must the German people be humiliated today because a group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course of history?

SPIEGEL: The German people today can’t do anything about it. But there is a sort of collective shame for those deeds done in the German name by our fathers or grandfathers.

Ahmadinejad: How can a person who wasn’t even alive at the time be held legally responsible?

SPIEGEL: Not legally but morally.

Ahmadinejad: Why is such a burden heaped on the German people? The German people of today bear no guilt. Why are the German people not permitted the right to defend themselves? Why are the crimes of one group emphasized so greatly, instead of highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why should the Germans not have the right to express their opinion freely?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we are well aware that German history is not made up of only the 12 years of the Third Reich. Nevertheless, we have to accept that horrible crimes have been committed in the German name. We also own up to this, and it is a great achievement of the Germans in post-war history that they have grappled critically with their past.

Ahmadinejad: Are you also prepared to tell that to the German people?

SPIEGEL: Oh yes, we do that.

Ahmadinejad: Then would you also permit an impartial group to ask the German people whether it shares your opinion? No people accepts its own humiliation.

SPIEGEL: All questions are allowed in our country. But of course there are right-wing radicals in Germany who are not only anti-Semitic, but xenophobic as well, and we do indeed consider them a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Let me ask you one thing: How much longer can this go on? How much longer do you think the German people have to accept being taken hostage by the Zionists? When will that end – in 20, 50, 1,000 years?

SPIEGEL: We can only speak for ourselves. DER SPIEGEL is nobody’s hostage; SPIEGEL does not deal only with Germany’s past and the Germans’ crimes. We’re not Israel’s uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won’t simply stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned.

Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.

SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the war?

Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?

SPIEGEL: The Europeans support the Palestinians in many ways. After all, we also have an historic responsibility to help bring peace to this region finally. But don’t you share that responsibility?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, but aggression, occupation and a repetition of the Holocaust won’t bring peace. What we want is a sustainable peace. This means that we have to tackle the root of the problem. I am pleased to note that you are honest people and admit that you are obliged to support the Zionists.

SPIEGEL: That’s not what we said, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: You said Israelis.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we’re talking about the Holocaust because we want to talk about the possible nuclear armament of Iran -- which is why the West sees you as a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Some groups in the West enjoy calling things or people a threat. Of course you’re free to make your own judgment.

Full article at:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,418660,00.html
____________________________________________________________________
Even though it is obvious that Ahmadinejad is eloquent in his defendse of truth and justice, that doesn't stop me the feeling that he seems as being from another world. In our world, politicians DO NOT speak their minds: they just act their lines in order to gain access to worthless titles holding no real power whatsoever. The only thing they must do is to play word games with their opponents and thus provide a worthless show to give servants the impression they are free. Our world is one of deceit, whereas the world of Ahmadinejad is the last outpost of freedom and decency that hasn't been conquered by our common enemy. This makes even more astounding the opposition between the calm, intelligent as well as, low and behold, HONEST way Ahmadinejad answers, and the devious, desperate and DISHONEST questions coming from the German "journalist".

For those unaccustomed to the way our world works, it might appear out of place how an Iranian defends enslaved Germans, whereas a German sees nothing wrong about being an abject slave and, worse still, pitifully regurgitates "magic" Jewish memes ("anti-semitism", "holocaust", "israel's right to exist", "democracy") in a vain hope to gain moral high point and silence its opponent. Perhaps the reporter cannot grasp a world different from his, where Jews are just normal people holding no special status and no immunity from the law.

Above all, this article shows the extraordinary predictability of Jewish media. This is in part a product servile attitudes, which make the so-called "journalists" reluctant in issuing any original thought out of a real fear of losing their jobs and their worthless reputations in favor of other slaves waiting in the line. This fear reflects into a discourse which looks completely out of touch with reality, but very much in touch with latest "progressive" dictates who "just happen" to be issued by Jews. What means to be progressive today:
1. to hate ourselves (because we have "oppressed" women/Jews/coloreds) and welcome more non-White foreigners into our land. When they start monopolizing criminal activities, do not mention their race and, if convicted, give them a measly punishment because "they need a second chance". If a White fights back, dwell on race and blow the event out of proportion to justify for more "correct" hatred.
2. to serve Jews while waiting for NOTHING BUT EVEN MORE HATRED in return (Jewish GRATITUDE is never the question)
3. to be weak and unresponsive, except when Israel/Jews need you, in which case we should selflessly sacrifice ourselves for them, otherwise the "Western Civilization" is in peril. Then, of course, in light of point 2, expect no gratitude in return, but even more ordeals.
4. to participate fully into this charade of "democracy" and really believe that we are free because we are only encouraged to indulge in vices of all possible sorts. This aspect is unfortunately very much ignored by those aware of Jewish schemes, even though it serves as a firm base for their world of lies, like the soft parts of the finger hiding the firm bone underneath. In a socially stable and morally unambiguous society, such as Iran or America before 1920s, the Jews would meet extreme difficulties establishing a foothold.
5. to crush those who do not fully agree with "our system of values" (a.k.a. jewish system of values for foreign consumption) and consider their internment in gulags as a sign of maturity, freedom and democracy. Controlled press is bloating of messages from jewish groups asking for "more actions" against "anti-semites". Of course, when masters ask, servs comply and this way more innocent people are ruined just to make Jews feel confortable.

On the other hand, the possibility that "democratic" journalists actually believe the garbage they are spewing, as odd as it may sound, is very real. A German child is bombarded with Holocaust imagery from early childhood and taught to associate any criticism of Jews with piles of dead bodies and "innocent women and children" roasting in Nazi ovens. In adulthood, this becomes like a conditionate reflex: if you mention Jews in a way that is less than laudatory, they immediately blank out and charge.

Perhaps the most important aspect that permeates from Ahmadinejad's discourse is that, outside of the fact we are sharing the same enemies, he has sincere appreciation for how our great culture used to be, the beacon of light onto which savages as well as other civilized peoples were looking at, consumed by envy and awe. He is adamant not only into the defense of Iranians or Muslims, but to the whole mankind consumed by Jewish insanity.

I wish him best of luck and congratulate Iranians for their choice...

Pope not paying proper homage to the holocaust

In France, home to Europe's largest Jewish population, chief rabbi Gilles Bernheim denounced Williamson's remarks as "despicable" in an interview with Le Monde.

Variatio servorum:

French government spokesman Luc Chatel called Williamson's remarks "unacceptable, abject and intolerable."
For whom? In which way are these views relevant for the French, except for an alien minority who oozes of hatred for its hosts?

"If the pope wants to do some good for the Church, he should leave his job," eminent liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering told the German daily Tageszeitung.
Or, better still, this "Catholic" theologian should leave his job and become open for his worship of Jews.

"Apparently no one can make the Iranian president and his henchman see reason" when they deny the "truth" of the Holocaust, and it is the same with the "bishop recently anointed by the highest authority of the Catholic Church," [La Libre Belgique] said.
Actually, both the Iranian president and "his henchman" (never bother to ask Jews or their abject servants for something like backing up their claims) see things just as they are. Their crimes are merely ones of heresy: that they do not believe into the Jew as God upon earth and, worse still, dare to question Jewish actions and "established truths". As for the "La Libre Belgique" (what a joke of a name...), it belongs to a lost chapter of Orwell's 1984: to find out truth, it's safe to apply a negation sign to whatever it says. The phrase "apparently no one can make Jews and their henchmen see reason" is indeed absolutely true, whereas the voice of "La Libre Belgique" becomes "La Belgique Occupe", which is once again absolutely true.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jgFF3BlptqEHC3CmOBvNZ86jLpkw

If God would exist, I'm sure he would roast in hell the whole leadership of Catholic church, including Ratzinger the Pope, with "his willingness for a dialogue with Judaism". But that is not the issue: the issue is that Christianity no longer provides any safe heaven for those that want to worship God rather than Jews. Today, Jews enjoy a status of deities and the whole "democratic world" (which by applying inversion becomes: "the totalitarian world", which is once again true) is employing non-stop propaganda and thought police to entertain this most unlikely of associations.

Israeli prime-minister in the act of giving orders to Bush

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.

"I said 'get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I did not care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the podium and spoke to me," he added.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=81953&sectionid=351020202

Of course, in the end Bush refused to comply, proving once and for all that American presidents are truly "the most powerful democratically elected leaders in the world", quite the opposite of what evil anti-Semites claim them to be: pitiful front figures destined to give a modicum of legitimacy to a society which is no less totalitarian than North Korea and under tighter Jewish grip than even the state of Israel...

What happened next is dispelled once again by Olmert himself:
He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor.

Q.E.D.

The president of France: not to intermarry racially is bad for the survival of the country

Recently Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans to pursue a vigorous policy of diversity and metissage. Concretely, this means giving preference to minorities in job hiring and prosecuting those who do not comply. In other words, affirmative action as a government policy from which none are exempt. In his message Sarkozy insisted that the French people must change, that there will be dire consequences if they don't, and that not to intermarry racially is bad for the survival of the country. Thus he amalgamated the concepts of preference for minorities in job hiring with that of the need for the French to intermarry racially.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3764
___________________________________________________________________
My comments:
1. Since "there is no such thing as race", why so much promotion for "diversity" and "metissage"?
2. The view that the French people need to intermarry racially is "racist", since it implies French people to be of one race (white), thus deprives "those that only came here to take jobs that the French wouldn't take" of their "dignity as Frenchmen".
3. Is this measure supported in any way by the majority of French citizen? No! Who supports it? Primarily those of same ethnic background as Sarkozy, the ones that cannot be named or being called upon their actions.
4. How can anyone justify "preference in job hiring" in FRANCE for the... NON-FRENCH? Oh wait... I know! The French are not allowed to have a living space: they must proceed into their annihilation with a big smile on their face and lots of pockets unloaded.

To give you a sense of perspective, let's try this the other way:
Recently the prime minister of Israel announced plans to pursue a vigorous policy of diversity and metissage. Concretely, this means giving preference to Palestinians in job hiring and prosecuting those who do not comply. In other words, affirmative action as a government policy from which none are exempt. In his message he insisted that the Jewish people must change, that there will be dire consequences if they don't, and that not to intermarry with Palestinians is bad for the survival of the country. Thus he amalgamated the concepts of preference for Palestinians in job hiring with that of the need for the Jewish to intermarry racially.

Hmm... Sounds "realistic", doesn't it?

Q.E.D.