File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0303, message 815


From: "Heather" <Heather-AT-teknopunx.co.uk>
Subject: Who is the grandson of a Nazi collaborator; Bush or Hussein?
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:00:28 -0000


Liberty or Death?

Who is the grandson of a Nazi collaborator; Bush or Hussein?

Do the following excerpts about Hitler (from a 1962 encyclopedia
article) sound in any way familiar today?

"A major concern was to alert the country to the perils of the "Red
terror" in order to cement his own position.  On the night of Feb. 27,
1933, the Reichstag was set afire.  The Nazis immediately laid the arson
to a Communist plot and, in the ensuing elections, profited greatly from
the trumpedup charge."

"In his attempt to achieve this goal, he established a secret police
(the Gestapo) to spy on the German people, concentration camps to break
their will, and a "Ministry of Propoganda and Enlightenment" to reshape
their thinking."

"One of his greatest triumphs came on Sept. 29, 1938, when the premiers
of Great Britain and France and Benito Mussolini met at Munich and
agreed to the surrender of the Sudetenland by Czechoslovakia.  By the
middle of October, German troops had occupied the area, and Hitler
prepared for the next "crisis"."


The Ten Planks Of The Terrorist Manifesto
[otherwise known as "the Bush Doctrine"]
http://www.topica.com/lists/Djehuti/read/message.html?mid=1712360466&sort=d&
start=1538

By now many must have heard of the warnings of "terrorist" retaliation
in response to Iraqi "liberation" showing just how far people are
willing to go in support of absurd notions of self-justification.  Who
would retaliate against liberation?  No one of course.  But terroristic
subjugation has always been a cause of violent response.  To refer to a
people's subjugation as being liberation is an insult that smacks of
something straight out of George Orwell.  Yet, is this not the
consistent history of such liberators?  Did not such liberators free
millions from their ancestral homelands in order to benefit their
children with forced labor, denied employment, and over representation
in the prison system?  Did not such liberators free millions of others
of their lands and sovereignty that their children could benefit from
the same forms of discrimination and restrictions on federally
controlled reservations?  From the very beginning, the most liberal of
these liberators had expressed clear sentiments of self-justification in
the "benefit" of others.


"Nobody wishes more than I do to see... proofs [exhibited] that nature
has given to our black brethren talents equal to those of the other
colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely
to the degraded condition of their existence both in Africa and America.
I can add with truth that nobody wishes more ardently to see a good
system commenced for raising the condition both of their body and mind
to what it ought to be as fast as the imbecility of their present
existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will
admit." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Banneker, 1791.

"The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance
of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and
proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their
condition of life." Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782.

"This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a
powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people." --Thomas
Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782.

"It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks
into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices
entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of
the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real
distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will
divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never
end but in the extermination of the one or the other race." --Thomas
Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782.

"In truth, the ultimate point of rest and happiness for [the Indians] is
to let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix
and become one people, incorporating themselves with us as citizens of
the U.S. This is what the natural progress of things will of course
bring on, and it will be better to promote than retard it. Surely it
will be better for them to be identified with us and preserved in the
occupation of their lands, than be exposed to the many casualties which
may endanger them while a separate people." --Thomas Jefferson to
Benjamin Hawkins, 1803.

"[To] incorporate with us as citizens of the United States... is
certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves;
but in the whole course of this it is essential to cultivate their love.
As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now
so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush
them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure
humanity only." --Thomas Jefferson William Henry Harrison, 1803.

"Convinced of its soundness, I feel it consistent with pure morality to
lead [the Indians] towards [becoming citizens,] to familiarize them to
the idea that it is for their interest to cede lands at times to the
United States, and for us to procure gratifications to our citizens from
time to time by new acquisitions of land." --Thomas Jefferson to
Benjamin Hawkins, 1803.

"In order peaceably to counteract [their] policy [of refusing absolutely
all further sale of their land], and to provide an extension of
territory which the rapid increase of our numbers will call for, two
measures are deemed expedient. First: to encourage them to abandon
hunting, to apply to the raising stock, to agriculture and domestic
manufactures, and thereby prove to themselves that less land and labor
will maintain them in this, better than in their former mode of living.
The extensive forest necessary in the hunting life will then become
useless, and they will see advantage in exchanging them for the means of
improving their farms and of increasing their domestic comforts.
Secondly: to multiply trading-houses among them, and place within their
reach those things which will contribute more to their domestic comfort
than the possession of extensive but uncultivated wilds. Experience and
reflection will develop to them the wisdom of exchanging what they can
spare and we want, for what we can spare and they want. In leading them
thus to agriculture, to manufactures, and civilization; in bringing
together their and our settlements, and in preparing them ultimately to
participate in the benefits of our government, I trust and believe we
are acting for their greatest good." --Thomas Jefferson: Confidential
Message on Western Exploration, 1803.

"Habits of industry, easy subsistence, attachment to property, are
necessary to prepare their minds for the first elements of science, and
afterwards for moral and religious instruction. To begin with the last
has ever ended either in effecting nothing, or ingrafting bigotry on
ignorance, and setting them to tomahawking and burning old women and
others as witches." --Thomas Jefferson to James Pemberton, 1807.

"The plan of civilizing the Indians is undoubtedly a great improvement
on the ancient and totally ineffectual one of beginning with religious
missionaries. Our experience has shown that this must be the last step
of the process. The following is what has been successful: 1st, to raise
cattle, etc., and thereby acquire a knowledge of the value of property;
2d, arithmetic, to calculate that value; 3d, writing, to keep accounts,
and here they begin to enclose farms, and the men to labor, the women to
spin and weave; 4th, to read 'Aesop's Fables' and 'Robinson Crusoe' are
their first delight." --Thomas Jefferson to James Jay, 1809.

"No nation rejecting our friendship, and commencing wanton and
unprovoked war against us, shall ever after remain within our reach; it
shall never be in their power to strike us a second time." --Thomas
Jefferson: Address to Indian Nations, 1808.

"We have cut off all possibility of intercourse and of mutual aid, and
may pursue at our leisure whatever plan we find necessary to secure
ourselves against the future effects of their savage and ruthless
warfare. The confirmed brutalization, if not the extermination of this
race in our America, is therefore to form an additional chapter in the
English history of the same colored man in Asia, and of the brethren of
their own color in Ireland, and wherever else Anglo-mercantile cupidity
can find a two-penny interest in deluging the earth with human blood."
--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

"The interested and unprincipled policy of England [in the War of 1812]
has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate
people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our
neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres
they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by
surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive
them to new seats beyond our reach." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von
Humboldt, 1813.


As the most liberal leader of the so-called "liberators" had himself
been of a self-justified imperialist mindset, it should be of no
surprise that lesser leaders have so easily continued in this
imperialist tradition.  Such Yurugu mentality ever sees itself as
possessing an inherent right to all it desires while vilifying anything
to stand in its way.  Even in its pacifist expression, no evil can be
accounted to those who carry out evil objectives.  Such people claim to
oppose a war but to remain in support of troops.  After all, are not
such troops innocent?  Like the Nazis, are they not just following
orders?  When they fire missles, when they fire bullets, when they drop
bombs, when they burn homes, when they bulldoze trenches of living
bodies, and when they utter ethnic slurs in the process of raping women
whose cries will never be heard before an International World Court, are
they not just innocent red-blooded Americans serving their country with
honor?  Should legally mature adults be held morally accountable for
bringing about the unjustified deaths of others?  Should so-called
"liberators" not be expected to have exercised their free will in
participating in such atrocities?  Yet pacifists of a Yurugu mentality
would excuse such decisions when it comes to the soldiers of their own
nation while condemning all others who would do the same.  The safety of
those who would freely chose to kill in the service of an unjustified
attack are of great concern to many pacifists (though the safety of
soldiers who would justifiably defend their own land is never
expressed).  However, one cannot oppose theft while being in support of
thieves, one cannot oppose rape while being in support of rapists, and
one cannot oppose murder while being in support of murderers.  It
doesn't matter if one is unjustifiably killing under the red, white, and
black in Kuwait or under the red, white, and blue in Iraq, a murderer is
a murderer, and no honor can be accorded to such criminals of humanity.
When a crime boss is found to be guilty of having issued a hit on a
victim, those convicted of having carried out the order will not be seen
as being innocent.  One cannot be opposed to a crime while being in
support of the perpetrators of the crime.  An amoral excuse of just
following orders will not be upheld in a court of law.  The baby-killers
of Iraq are no more innocent than the baby-killers of Vietnam or any
other place to have been unjustifiably attacked by America.  When
pacifists declare their support of soldiers engaged in an attack that
the pacifists are opposed to, they are expressing the self-exonerated
perspective that such terrorist acts are merely a moral embarrassment
incapable of truly being criminal for an American.  Such Yurugu
mentality, even in its pacifist form, goes hand in hand with the Ten
Planks of the Fourth Reich's Terrorist Manifesto.  Justice (Maat) may be
blind to the respect of persons but racist born nationalism, going all
the way back to Thomas Jefferson and before, certainly isn't.

Djehuti Sundaka


PATRIOTIC POSTERS - WHITEHOUSE.ORG
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005