← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 4535 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-01-20
2003-01-20 07:39 | User Profile
FreeRepublic.com discussion of Dumbya's Immigration Hallucination
form [url=http://www.sianews.com/]http://www.sianews.com/[/url]
International Politics FreeRepublic.com--by now an organizational and rah-rah crowed for the Bush administration, rather than "an online gathering place for independent, grassroots conservatism--continues to be critical of Dear Leader on his (& his handlers') immigration stance.
Many FReepers have openly said that immigration is their "line-in-the-sand-issue."
Click below...
here
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825023/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825023/posts[/url]
2003-01-20 08:06 | User Profile
NO GOP SURGE AMONG LATINOS
International Politics by Mark Krikorian January 18, 2003
Report: Immigration Proposals Don't Move Hispanic Voters
WASHINGTON (January 16, 2003) -- Despite proposals by the White House and certain congressional Republicans for increased immigration, amnesty for illegal aliens, and new guestworker programs, a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds no evidence of a Republican surge among Latino voters in the 2002 mid-term elections...
NO GOP SURGE AMONG LATINOS The CIS Backgrounder, "Latinos and the 2002 Election: Republicans Do Well When Latinos Stay Home," by James G. Gimpel, a Professor of Government at the University of Maryland, College Park, is based on Fox News election-day polls in 10 states with key races for U.S. Senate or governor. The complete report is at [url=http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back203.html]http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back203.html[/url]
Among the key findings:
The Latino vote for GOP Senate candidates was similar to prior years, at about one-third; gubernatorial candidates fared better, at close to one-half.
But Latinos who voted in 2002 had higher income and education levels than the Latino electorate as a whole. Turnout of lower and middle income Latinos was much lower in 2002 than in 2000.
Latino voters who identify themselves as "independents" are, in fact, likely to vote Democratic. The fact that many of these independents stayed home in 2002 helped Republicans.
There is no "Latino" voting bloc, as such -- after controlling for party identification, income, and education, there is no difference between Latino voting and the voting pattern of non-Hispanic whites in either the Senate or gubernatorial races of 2002.
Prof. Gimpel writes: "If Latinos cannot be politically distinguished on the basis of ethnicity after we account for their income and education levels, why do we persist in the belief that we need to reach them with a distinctive set of policy proposals on immigration, illegal-alien amnesties, guestworker programs, or any other set of issues tailored only around 'their' interests?"
Prof. Gimpel may be reached at jgimpel@gvpt.umd.edu or (301) 405-7929.
[url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=564]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...article&sid=564[/url]
2003-01-20 17:10 | User Profile
Immigration is the only issue that matters. I keep telling my GOP friends this, and they just can't seem to get it. Their only answer to me is: "Well, the DEMS will only allow more immigration" or "The DEMS want affirmative action and quotas and they'll just make it worse"
-Jay
2003-01-20 21:06 | User Profile
Jay, Yes, Immigration number one issue for USA. Here in Japan we have strict immigration policies unlike the states. That why Nationalist countries will survive in end.
Also, Communist Red China very Nationalistic, and very little immigration because of population problem. Red China biggest threat to World.
Jay, You seem familiar to me. Did you by chance used to post at the Volk B board (ss,Rena,paul,Nor,Von, about year an half ago with a confederate avator?
Long Live Samurai! THE SHOGUN[img]http://www.nsjap.com/axis/waffenbruderschaft.jpg[/img][B]
2003-01-21 03:27 | User Profile
SHOGUN Posted on Jan 20 2003, 15:06
**Yes, Immigration number one issue for USA. Here in Japan we have strict immigration policies unlike the states. That why Nationalist countries will survive in end. **
Welcome, hon. Aryan, SHOGUN
The above claim is very true if you mean to say that the people as a distinct race inhabiting a particular territory that is theirs exclusively will survive. Rational men understand constructs such as regimes, governments, and economic systems to be fleeting and therefore insignificant next to the only thing that matters ââ¬â the raw material or people of a nation. Whatever the relative success of a society that follows, there is at least the comfort that its development was guided by the raceââ¬â¢s distinct inner nature and is in harmony with its customs and natural law. Without alien influence they alone are responsible for its proper development or failure, which is as it should be. This opportunity is currently being denied to all Western nations by the New World Order crowd and many Jews and for this alone a death sentence is merited.
Japanââ¬â¢s refusal to amend its race-based citizenship laws is commendable but I am told that there has been a significant increase of foreign guest workers on your islands over the past decade. I probably need not tell you that many citizens started out as ââ¬Åguest workers,ââ¬Â and that the experiences of USA and Federal Republic of Germany (citizenship based on blood still has some weight there, but for how long who can say), with their Mexican and Turkish labourers respectively, ought to be avoided at all cost. Once sizable enclaves of ethnic minorities take hold one of two things happens: 1) mongrelization (e.g., Egypt) or 2) break-up of the country (e.g., Yugoslavia), and though it may take centuries it is inevitable unless physical removal of foreigners is effected.
This is precisely why our schools, media, and governments have colluded to impress on us the importance of the equations: Hitler = Lucifer and National Socialism = Unparallel evil. Regardless of the merits of the Nazi regime in other spheres of life (always debatable) it is a fact that it was openly racist and pursued aims it deemed beneficial to its people, counting deportation, sterilization, and mass shootings among its methods. Given the extent of our ââ¬Ëeducation,ââ¬â¢ you can appreciate our dilemma and estimate the likelihood of continued existence of hominids with milky-white complexions surviving as anything but very small minorities in countries that were once theirs (two short centuries tops, says UN). Our education was very thorough and even continuous to hinder the thinking of those who fancy themselves immune which, incidentally, is why on a forum such as this youââ¬â¢ll still encounter much drivel concerning the respective birth rates of races, or reducing immigration rates, or electing (how I know not) an administration receptive to paleo-conservative agenda. All are fascinating issues but utterly miniscule next to the all-important present racial composition of concerned countries (i.e., what to do with the undesirables already present).
So here is hoping that regardless of her economic difficulties (USA & Germany will be joining very shortly in this regard) Japan remains an ethnically homogenous example of what is possible and socially desirable. If youââ¬â¢re still with me SHOGUN, I have but one question: Your politicians, particularly those who have the long-term welfare of their country at heart, are doubtless very skilled in the art of pretence and avoid laughing in the faces of the white morons who suggest that importing foreign savages is needed to remedy economic difficulties, but what of your bankers (in need of debt-free clients or ââ¬Åmilch cowsââ¬Â) and industrialists (in need of cheap labour) whose interests may lie elsewhere and who have the ears of politicians?
The prospect of following the example of western banks and making a quick buck by granting credit to savages who upon arrival are debt free and who on balance ought to be good for few years of usury must be enticing, particularly to an industry in need of cash infusion. Your increase of foreign guest workers hints of a problem in the making. But then again, unlike our ââ¬Åeducation,ââ¬Â yours has not hindered your morality of survival and you probably retain the option of mass deportation. :)
2003-01-21 15:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by SHOGUN@Jan 20 2003, 15:06 ** Jay, You seem familiar to me. Did you by chance used to post at the Volk B board (ss,Rena,paul,Nor,Von, about year an half ago with a confederate avator?
Long Live Samurai! THE SHOGUN[IMG] **
No, wasn't me. This is the only board I'm on. PS: hey what up w/the Nazi symbol? I'm not sure that plays out very well today.
-Jay
2003-01-22 00:59 | User Profile
Jay, My mistake. Yes, I notice other day no National Socialist images here. Some choose moderate position. I realize that Internationalist owned media in USA do good job brainwashing public to fear symbols. I personally admire alot of National Socialist policies, but not all. Hitler was still great Man.
However, I do understand position, and I do feel that best road for your progress is avoiding links to Nazism, which why I have agreed, during consultation with TD, the owner of board, to refrain from posting National Socialist images. I think good to use ForeFather symbols like here, very positive. Take care.
Sysifos, Greetings to you & Thank you for response. Very good points you make. You seem very educated on subject matter, You no lose me. I do feel that Japanese future depend on strict Immigration policy, but like you hint, who know what future hold for Japanese policies. I go now, but I see you later my friend.[B]
THE SHOGUN [img]http://www.nsjap.com/axis/army1.jpg[/img]
2003-01-22 06:33 | User Profile
Welcom, Shogun!
It's great to have you here.
I'm not a Nazi. I'm a Catholic. The two are of course completely incompatible.
I think that there are many Christians on this forum, including our fearless leader Texas Disident.
That is why there is so little Nazi stuff here.
Walter
2003-01-22 11:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jan 22 2003, 00:33 **I'm not a Nazi. I'm a Catholic. **
Walter to many enemies of the Occident they are one and the same :(
It is interesting to note that several Fascist movements were also staunch Catholic movements: The Army Comrades Association (a.k.a. the Blueshirts) and the Legion of the Archangel Michael (a.k.a. the Ironguard), to name a couple. They were primarily anti-communist/anti-immorality movements.
2003-01-22 13:23 | User Profile
na Gaeil is gile,
Great Post. I did not know Irishman came to the aid of Spain. But the The Legion of the Archangel Michael was Eastern Orthodox not Roman Catholic movement.
CONSTANTIN STOICANESCU [url=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1268/]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1268/[/url]
PAGINA ROMANIEI NATIONALISTE [url=http://pages.prodigy.net/nnita/garda.html]http://pages.prodigy.net/nnita/garda.html[/url]
LEGION ARCHANGEL MICHAEL [url=http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/third-position/rom-in.html]http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/third-positio...ion/rom-in.html[/url]
The Legion of the Archangel Michael [url=http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/legarcm.html]http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christian...ty/legarcm.html[/url]
Here is an Article on the Blueshirt.
The Army Comrades' Association [url=http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPblue.htm]http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPblue.htm[/url]
2003-01-22 13:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Jan 22 2003, 07:23 But the The Legion of the Archangel Michael was Eastern Orthodox not Roman Catholic movement.
Doh! I need an emoticon of plam slapping forehead, thanks Faust :)
2003-01-23 02:08 | User Profile
It is interesting to note that several Fascist movements were also staunch Catholic movements
Including, unless I'm misinformed, the Ustasha.
2003-01-23 08:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Jan 22 2003, 11:59 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jan 22 2003, 00:33 **I'm not a Nazi.ÃÂ I'm a Catholic. **
Walter to many enemies of the Occident they are one and the same :(
It is interesting to note that several Fascist movements were also staunch Catholic movements: The Army Comrades Association (a.k.a. the Blueshirts) and the Legion of the Archangel Michael (a.k.a. the Ironguard), to name a couple. They were primarily anti-communist/anti-immorality movements. **
Yes, that's right. One of the most damaging distortions of our language that the Left contrived was to term the Nazis "facists," as if Franco had anything to do with Nazism's occultist/paganistic underpinnings.
Franco was a Catholic Army officer who did what he had to do to prevent the Moscow-backed Left from taking over his country and destroying Spain. He prevented the Left from destroying the Church in Spain and from murdering even more priests and nuns. While his rule was far from perfect, Franco's Spain never suffered the mass terror and state-sponsored starvation that the Jewish Bolsheviks inflicted on the Slavic peasantry. As long as you shut up in Franco's Spain, you were left alone. While he was no Jeffersonian, his rule was far more just than that of the Jewish Bolsheviks. Indeed, Franco oversaw the transition of his great nation to a stable Constitutional Democracy. The freedom and prosperity enjoyed by 40 million Spaniards today is the direct result of Franco's courage and foresight.
I am closest to the Third Positionists - a movement that believes in Catholic social teaching - which is based on respect for families, private property, a policy favouring small businesses and against large accumulations of capital with banks and corporations and the state, support for social institutions of all kinds including strong trade unions, and a belief in the Natural Right of nations to enjoy cultural autonomy, genetic integrity, and territorial sovereignty (see Articles 56-58 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
I reject the Nazis, and would prefer not to be associated with them in any way.
Walter
2003-01-23 12:06 | User Profile
Of course, I respect Walter's beliefs, and I don't wish for OD to come under undue harassment, but I see nothing particularly evil or ominous in a display of swastikas, Iron Crosses, etc.
I'm frankly sick and tired of this Pavlovian flinching from mere symbols, like Dracula cowering before a crucifix. In fact, the same people who demand I tremble in dread before the hated Swastika are also the ones who insist that the crucifix is No 2 with a bullet on the all time Symbols Of Evil chart!
2003-01-23 13:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jan 23 2003, 12:06 ** Of course, I respect Walter's beliefs, and I don't wish for OD to come under undue harassment, but I see nothing particularly evil or ominous in a display of swastikas, Iron Crosses, etc.
I'm frankly sick and tired of this Pavlovian flinching from mere symbols, like Dracula cowering before a crucifix. In fact, the same people who demand I tremble in dread before the hated Swastika are also the ones who insist that the crucifix is No 2 with a bullet on the all time Symbols Of Evil chart! **
Please don't get me wrong. I don't get freaked out about avatars or other symbols. I didn't like the guy who showed up recently as John Wayne Gacey, but a few Nordic references don't bother me.
TD runs a clean ship here, and he does a great job of keeping the discussions moving along in constructive channels. I certainly wouldn't want to lose the chance to talk to neo-Nazi's openly and with mutual respect, especially over something as inconsequential as their avatar.
I meant to say that I don't consider myself in anyway associated with Nazi ideas or preferred methods.
Walter
2003-01-23 13:43 | User Profile
No, you're right, Walter. No point borrowing trouble; and I was less than thrilled with 'Gacey' myself.
Still, I wonder. There are an awful lot of people who have never praised Hitler or brandished swastikas - and who never would! - who are universally derided as "anti-Semites" because they once or twice worked up enough courage to note the blindingly obvious re Our Betters.
If, let's say, all the questionable avatars were removed - in fact, go one better and excise all the most inflammatory posts by the most inflammatory regulars, so that only the soberest contributors (AY, FW1, Sertorius, etc) remained - what do you think the response from Jews and ZOGbots alike would be towards OD?
The sky would still be falling for Chicken Littlestein, no matter what. Even the lack of Nazi affectation would be viewed as sinister (ie, "that these anti-Semites assiduously avoid and reject any attempt at linkage with Hitler's Nazis makes tham even more dangerous than the beer-stoked, brown-shirted standard-issue Haters", etc, etc).
And there's still this to mull over: you can despise Hitler & the Nazis all you want, but he was still one of the very very few in power the last 100 years working to preserve and defend the white race against its blood enemies. All the rest are either working against us, or practicing benign neglect in between paydays.
2003-01-23 19:15 | User Profile
il ragno, I could not have said it better myself. Ya, they made me change my Adolf Hitler avakar, but have said nothing about Thuelist, or Robert E. Lee, who would fall under the same Liberal assault as the Nazis.
I don't want to cause any problems for anyone else, but it seems all you have to do is decieve & spin, just like you know who?, and thats just fine. Just seems a little double standard, but what can you do?
And there's still this to mull over: you can despise Hitler & the Nazis all you want, but he was still one of the very very few in power the last 100 years working to preserve and defend the white race against its blood enemies. All the rest are either working against us, or practicing benign neglect in between paydays. -Il ragno
That just about says it all - Nor cal.skiN [img]http://www.hitler.org/art/breker/predestination-thumb.jpg[/img]
"If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower." -- Adolf Hitler, Landsberg, 5 November 1925
2003-01-23 19:26 | User Profile
"I'm not a Nazi. I'm a Catholic. The two are of course completely incompatible."
This is one of the most inane comments I have heard in quite some time. I'm somewhat surprised, as I remember Mr.Yannis from the defunct Canny Sammy Francis Forum to have been formerly quite incisive and cogent in his analysis. To all the Christians of sundry confessions, I would like to point out very BRIEFLY that:
1) Hitler and the Third Reich built over 2000 Christian churches (that's 'built with public monies', and not merely 'allowed to be built') during their lamentably short tenure in power.
2) Hitler et al. suppressed the abominably vile Semitic practice of ritualized infanticide, otherwise known as abortion. They did this forcefully with severe criminal sanctions against the kosher source of this social abscess, and not with the hypocritical sanctimonious cant beloved of the cowardly Christian rabble interminably yapping about "ALL life being precious". From their own words disavowing all meaningful resistance to the Jew baby butchers, one concludes that the most precious lives of all are those of the Jew baby killers dispatched by MEN like Eric Rudolf, one of the few 'Christians' left worth spit (Chalk one up for the 'We be da troo JooZ' Christian Identity folks)
3) The largely Christian armies of Uncle Wolf went into their holy war for the defense of Western Civilization against the dark forces of Judea with the officially sanctioned motto 'Gott mit uns' inscribed on each and every belt buckle. Just whom do you suppose this 'Gott' referenced? Odin? Thor? Zeus? Ahura Mazda? Get a grip man!
Hitler's commitment to Positive Christianity is so well documented that I hesitate to belabor the obvious. A few words from devout catholic humanities professor Dr. Austin App (deceased) are apropos:
HITLER AND THIRD REICH BASICALLY CHRISTIAN ... should once and for all demolish the vile slander that National Socialism was intrinsically against Christianity. It was not. National Socialism was fundamentally, positively Christian. In a conference with Friedrich Christian Prinz zu Schaumburg-Lippe, Hitler declared that a confrontation between religion and politics is damaging to both, that the State needs "religious citizens as the foundation for a moral and clean society", but that "it is unchristian to abuse religion in the interest of politics or economics." Further: "It is Christian teaching which gives the people the necessary firmness of Belief ... His Party therefore did not wish to place boundaries too narrow but espouses 'Positive Christianity' ... a Christianity not confessionally tied down ... To know this Christianity as strong, was for him of the greatest importance." (Quoted from Wer War Hitler? by H. S. Ziegler, Tuebingen, 1970, pp. 10-1) It is pitiful how American clergymen, Protestant and Catholic, preached that America must help the Bolsheviks pulverize Germany because the Third Reich and Hitler were anti-Christian. It shows how brainwashed even sincere people can become. Soviet Russia was openly atheistic, it totally destroyed, or converted to garages or museums, thousands of Christian churches, the Third Reich none. Yet these Christian clergymen, either brainwashed or prostituted, thundered against the Third Reich and glamorized the Soviet Union! BETWEEN A STRONG REGIME AND A STRONG CHURCH ALWAYS SOME TENSION Certainly there was often tension between the Nazi government and the Christian, especially the Catholic Church. And Msgr. Neuhaeusler and Pastor Niemoeller were put into the Dachau concentration camp. But the Soviets murdered some 7,000 priests and bishops! And would not Roosevelt have put Father Coughlin into prison if he had not been able to browbeat his bishop to forbid him to write and preach! And he did in fact incarcerate some such noble clergymen as Lutheran Pastor Kurt Molzahn of Philadelphia! The Catholic Church never flourished more than in the Third Reich. And when the bishops protested a projected government policy of euthanasia the "wicked" Nazi government listened to the bishops and rescinded the policy. Has our Supreme Court and our government so far rescinded its inhumane, shameful policy of abortion, in line with our bishops' protest? No. On the contrary they keep saying the Churches, Catholic and Protestant, have no business advising the government! No, the tension between the National Socialist government and the Catholic and Lutheran Churches was the normal tension between Religion and Politics, when both are active, dedicated, and aggressive. It is the old tension between what is God's and what is Caesar's. At the moment the very Catholic government of Spain, Franco's, is having a quarrel with a Basque bishop and the Vatican! It is a family quarrel. And that and no more summarizes the tension between Hitler, National Socialism, the Third Reich, and the Catholic and Lutheran Churches. Throughout the war, the Third Reich subsidized Lutheran and Catholic schools. Has our "democratic" government done the like for Christianity? I cannot help reflecting that, except for the brainwashed clergymen, the liberals who profess to deplore Hitler's "persecution" of the Church did in fact in their hearts hope that Hitler would liquidate the Church the way their beloved Soviet Russians liquidated the Christian church there! Part of their hatred of Hitler and National Socialism is probably subconsciously attributable to the fact that under Hitler the churches flourished as never before!"
PS I too am annoyed by the disingenuous but deliberate identification of Natseee with fascist. The honorable German National Socialists of the interregnum era had far more in common with the honorable 'honorary Yellow Aryans" of the land of the rising sun than with the race denying regime of Il Dupe. The fact that the seminal political bible of the Italian Fascisti was written by a Jew (musta been one of those mythical 'Good' Jews I keep hearing about) and that its chief economic architect moonlighted as the Chief Rabbi of Rome should give one pause. And, oh yeah, the fighting fascists were about as useful during the great struggle as tits on a boar. As for Codreanu, he was undeniably a magnificent fellow. In honor of his memory, all racially untainted Romanians should redouble their efforts to rid their country of der ewige jude and his hordes of swarthy cigani.
2003-01-24 10:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jan 23 2003, 13:43 ** No, you're right, Walter. No point borrowing trouble; and I was less than thrilled with 'Gacey' myself.
Still, I wonder. There are an awful lot of people who have never praised Hitler or brandished swastikas - and who never would! - who are universally derided as "anti-Semites" because they once or twice worked up enough courage to note the blindingly obvious re Our Betters.
If, let's say, all the questionable avatars were removed - in fact, go one better and excise all the most inflammatory posts by the most inflammatory regulars, so that only the soberest contributors (AY, FW1, Sertorius, etc) remained - what do you think the response from Jews and ZOGbots alike would be towards OD?
The sky would still be falling for Chicken Littlestein, no matter what. Even the lack of Nazi affectation would be viewed as sinister (ie, "that these anti-Semites assiduously avoid and reject any attempt at linkage with Hitler's Nazis makes tham even more dangerous than the beer-stoked, brown-shirted standard-issue Haters", etc, etc).
And there's still this to mull over: you can despise Hitler & the Nazis all you want, but he was still one of the very very few in power the last 100 years working to preserve and defend the white race against its blood enemies. All the rest are either working against us, or practicing benign neglect in between paydays. **
There's nothing we could ever do to please the Jews. There's no use in trying. It's just their culture to insist that it's never enough.
Jews are as a group the purest ethnic partisans - there's no thought of objectivity. That's what we tend to miss. If somebody's conceding something, then thier reaction isn't to try to find a middle ground but rather to try to get more. A "reasonable accomodation" is alien to their traditional way of thinking. They're in a constant state of mental war with us gentiles, and they tend to take any talk of "reasonable accomodation" as a sign of weakness and maneuvre tactically in response. Similarly, the idea of "objective argument in search of the truth" is just lost on them, because argument with them is not aimed at finding the "truth," but rather is just rhetorical parry and thrust aimed at winning the argument.
That's where we go wrong. We assume that Jews are like us and assume that reasoned debate will tend toward discovery of the Truth with a capital "T" with the underlying assumption that we're all trying to be reasonable here. That's just not the way it is with them, and we need to understand that.
Thus, I see no way to avoid being labeled an Anti-Semite, despite the fact that I'm in the minority around here in supporting the right of Israel to exist securely in its pre-1967 borders with no right of return for the Palestinians. Jews need to have their own country, just as I need to have mine. But there I go again falsely imputing to Jews reason and reciprocity.
I bear no personal animosity toward them, because I understand that it's not an individual thing. It's a cliche, but I'm on very good terms with some very fine Jews whom I think the world of. It's a tribal thing that just doesn't effect directly personal affections.
We need to separate, for the good of us all. History has a way of repeating itself, after all, and their 60-year covert war on our Christian, European and English-speaking nation is bound to cause an opposite and equal reaction.
I'm rambling on, but I think the point is that we shouldn't worry at all about whether Jews think we're anti-Semites (or in the case of one of my favourite paleocons Paul Gotfried a "self-hating Jew" - you see, you just can't win). We need to simply speak the truth as God gives to us the ability to see the truth, without rancor and in Christian charity.
As to Hitler, I prefer to avoid the discussion because it's very divisive and we WN's need to stay united in the face of the current threat. I agree that Hitler saw clearly the truth of the terrible destructive influence of the Jewish presence in Europe, but so did Theodore Herzl and Winston Churchill. Nothing excuses Hitler's, er, "excesses." The truth of his insights about the Jews were discredited by the wave of revulsion at his methods that swept the white world. Indeed, it is no exageration to say that Hitler did more harm to the cause of nationalism - and white nationalism in particular - than any other man in history. But, I'll stop.
Regards,
Walter