The current TOO video is a 9-minute segment from Charles Lindbergh’s famous (our elites would say ‘notorious’) Des Moines speech of September 11, 1941 where he described the three forces that were leading the U.S. to war: The British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration. Discussing the roles of the British and Roosevelt was not controversial–politics as usual, and certainly no one could claim that Lindbergh’s claims were unfounded. But his comments on Jews resulted in an extraordinary firestorm that remains a marker of Jewish influence during the period and reverberates even today, as in Philip Roth’s The Plot against America, a paranoid Jewish fantasy of a Lindbergh presidency.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the rest of the speech on the Internet, which seems odd since the part on the Roosevelt administration is available—leading to paranoid fantasies of my own. It would be great if someone could find it.
Another available Lindbergh video is this 1-minute video of a speech given on the Mutual Broadcasting System, one of the major networks during the period, on October 13, 1939. Lindbergh warns that the war in Europe is a war for the survival of the White race. He uses phrases like the ”bond of race” that the US has with Europe, that “racial strength is vital” and of the need to preserve the “European race” (by which he meant to include all Europeans, not just Nordics but all European groups, including the Slavic peoples).
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAlCDMp-Y3c&feature=related
This speech was given right around the time (after the invasion of Poland by Germany and the USSR and the declaration of war by Britain and France on Germany) that an article by Lindbergh appeared in The Reader's Digest, another important mass media outlet at the time. Lindbergh stated that this was a war
among a dominant people for power, blind, insatiable, suicidal. Western nations are again at war, a war likely to be more prostrating than any in the past, a war in which the White race is bound to lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead our civilization through more Dark Ages if it survives at all.
Advertisement
From the standpoint of the present, what's amazing is that such assertions could appear in the American mass media. Indeed, one of the themes of Lindbergh's comments on Jews in his 1941 speech was media influence:
The Jews’ “greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our Government.” He concluded by stating, “I am saying that the leaders of both the British and Jewish races, for reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war”
The foregoing is from the Preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique, pp. 8-14) which also discusses Jewish media ownership and influence during the 1930s. Interestingly, neither the Mutual Broadcasting System or Reader’s Digest appear on lists of media owned by Jews at the time. Media control matters.
Facing the Future as a Minority
From Charles the Lindbergh Wikipedia page:
How rare is it today to find a public figure with the courage of Charles Lindbergh, who will not back down when accused of “anti-Semitism”!
Thank you very much for posting this wonderful video.
One could reasonably argue that Charles Lindbergh was sometimes guilty of downplaying his feelings about Jewish power and influence. I find it difficult to judge him too harshly for this. I am not aware of him ever having been a true dissembler, and he often spoke and wrote very strongly about the machinations of powerful Jews.
Charles and Anne, his remarkable and brilliant wife, were so impressed with Hitler’s Germany that they seriously considered moving there. The great affection and respect for the German people that they developed certainly had much to do with this.
Sometimes, especially when considering the pathetic and contemptible state of our beloved “democracy,” I wish that we had somehow managed to make Charles and Anne our ruling King and Queen, though I doubt that they would have wanted that.
@thm:
How rare is it today to find a public figure with the courage of Charles Lindbergh, who will not back down when accused of “anti-Semitism”!
Didn’t they kidnap and murder his infant son for this? Yeah, I think that should address the point you made..
Knowing what this courageous and intelligent man stood for, one could only wish that Philip Roth’s “paranoid” novel would have come true and Lindbergh would indeed have been president of the USA.To call such a presidency a “plot against America” is unbelievablechutzpah,as if it not the machinations of the Jews were/are the greatest plot against America!
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Correction: the last sentence should be: To call such a presidency a “plot against America” is unbelievable chutzpah,as if the machinations of the Jews were/are not the greatest plot against America!
Lindbergh was spot on with most of his comments and observations, and that’s why the non-’gentiles’ hate him so much.
You could almost elevate it to a fixed rule: when is somebody a truely great man?When he is intensely hated by the Jews!(and history is full of such men).
FBI files on Lindbergh
16 Zip files in PDF format
http://www.charleslindbergh.com/fbi/index.asp
This link leads to the same files in case you have trouble with the above link.
http://vault.fbi.gov/Charles Lindbergh
Looks like he pissed a lot of people off.
http://vault.fbi.gov/Charles Lindbergh
This link above didn’t come out right.
WW2 was indeed the death of the West, really both world wars were the same conflict with a 20 year truce.
Hitler discounted the possibility of American entry in World War II partly because der Fuehrer mistook Lindbergh’s celebrity status for genuine political influence. His endorsement might have helped sell automobiles or breakfast food but decision makers in the US government and military would no more take Lindbergh’s advice on foreign policy than they would have listened to boxing champion Jack Dempsey or Gertrude Ederle the Channel swimmer.
@Caleb:
You make it sound as if CAL were the only anti-interventionist of any significance. America First was the largest antiwar movement in US history and had many prominent members. Please read some non-Kosher history.
P.S. CAL was not a athlete-he was an aviator, businessman, inventor, author and conservationist.
@Caleb: That’s silly, only a Pat Buchanan would expect the US to stay out in 1941.
A powerful near neighbor is a natural enemy, a country on the far side of that natural enemy is a natural ally. Britain’s original natural enemy was France (while it was the most powerful state in Europe). As an offshore power Britain preferred to ‘balance’ against strong land powers, it subsidized Prussia against France, when Prussia/Germany became too strong Britain saw it as the new contender for hegemony and hence an enemy. In both cases Russia was the natural ally. (And that explains Germany’s alliance with Japan too)
So America was the offshore balancer of WW1, it subsidized Britain in WW1 because Germany’s strength made it a potential hegemon and future threat to the US if it won. Britain would have been quickly defeated in WW1 without American assistance. (In 1914 Britain largely lacked the technological capacity to make basic necessities of war like ball bearings and even explosives). Britain, allied with (‘God Save the Tsar and Damn the Jews!’) Russia, would have lost WW1 rather quickly without US aid.
With all this in mind Hitler surely understood that the more it looked like Germany was going to win the less likely it was that the USA would stay out. Consider, 72 hours before he made his ‘Finest Hour’ speech Churchill wrote to Roosevelt threatening America with the prospect of Britain capitulating:-
Roosevelt had to give Britain US support from an early stage due to Britain’s trump card, which was its weakness.
In I941 the US became frantic at the prospect of a Japanese attack on Russia which would knock it out of the out of the war and hand Germany total victory. So, given German victories, it was a foregone conclusion that the US would enter the war at that point. Lindbergh’s fans, like those of Pat Buchanan, need to read more history.
If Lindbergh’s suggested course of action was the only sensible one, there should be many cases in history when states did something similar. Can we please have a example ?
@icr: Lindbergh’s activities in conservation were commendable enough whatever his motives. [I believe he shared the Himmleresque loathing of "Jewish" cities.]
He doubtless was a brave and competent aviator. Still, I wonder if the French would have welcomed “Lindy” so joyously in 1927 had they known how, a few years later, he would turn on them.
@Someday:
Historical events are by their very nature unique.You don’t have to find historical parallels to make it plausible that something really happened.
@Someday: While there were those in the Japanese high command who advocated falling on the Russians from the rear as Hitler desperately desired, Japan kept to its neutrality treaty to the very end. I know of no evidence that America was “frantic” or even thought much about such a possibility.
Since you read history backward your view of World War I is completely distorted. Our main ally then was France, not England. Pres. Wilson was something of an Anglophobe and most Americans weren’t very favorably disposed toward Britain, seen as a greedy, imperial power and a commercial rival. In the midwest, the large German-American population was downright hostile.
If we entered the war to save any country it was France whose territory had been partially overrun and turned to a battleground. British soldiers were certainly drying in huge numbers but there was no possibility of her home territory being invaded and occupied. A few zeppelin raids were all the damage Germany could inflict.
But it is easy to mistake the First World War as a dress rehearsal for the Second, with the same alliances and motivations, if you look at it through the lens of the anti-Nazi struggle.
Questions of inevitability aside, the Popular Front victory of 1945 leads directly to the degenerate state of today’s West. Even the Jewish, pro-Zionist Moldbug understands that:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/secret-of-anti-americanism.html
Further elaboration:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-i-stopped-believing-in-democracy.html
@Franklin Ryckaert: The counter-factual scenario of the US staying out of WW2 does not count as an example because it didn’t happen ! The example could be unique, I asked for a single case of a country actually acting as Lindbergh suggested the US should have acted and you can’t provide one.
That the Allies subsequently committed national suicide by mass immigration does not alter the fact that in 1939 or 41 it was perfectly reasonable (and predictable remember WW1) that Britain and America would stop Germany from becoming a superpower.
There is a strong case for talking about the Iraq war but WW2 revisionism is a washout, it has had an entirely negative effect on the public’s perception of nationalism and needs to be abandoned.
WW2 created the neo-Bolshevik American empire. Rothbard writing in
1968:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard165.html
Lindberg was right. WW! Wilson and all the slobbering progressives said they would save the world. What happened? Jewish communists took over Russia and unleashed communism on the world, east to China and west to Europe.
Jewish communists took over Hungary, and tried to take over Germany and Austria. Didn’t Jew Eisner massacre 10,000 christians during the short Jewish communist takeover of Munich?
20 years later WW2. All that accomplished was to fulfill the 1917 communist goal of taking over China and Eastern Europe.
Thousands of elderly British who fought and worked and endured during WW2 are now saying; what did we fight for?
Would a German occupation be worse than the present arab/african occupation of large sections of our cities?
I fought to keep the nazis out of Britian and I am now ruled by arabs, africans and White communists like Red Ken Livingston mayor of London.
Facio Libre
Didn’t they kidnap and murder his infant son for this?
No, the kidnapping was several years earlier. Ironically, the baby was kidnapped and murdered by a German immigrant. Another argument to end all immigration.
That immigrant got in illegally fleeing burgularly warrants out for him in Germany.
“As an offshore power Britain preferred to ‘balance’ against strong land powers, it subsidized Prussia against France,”
It was a bit more than that, England practically created Prussia. i have often wondered if the reasons the europeans have not gotten themselves into WW3 is that England is no longer even a secondary power?
@Someday:
Your reasoning is wrong.You don’t need an other example for something that happened or might have happened in history.Normally countries go to war for their (perceived) interests,not for the sake of an ethnic lobby with a Mafia-like strangle hold on all the levers of its power.But helas no country with a considerable Jewish population behaves normally.
As for the Iraq war,I wonder what antics of “geo-political” reasonings you will resort to, to explain that that useless and destructive war was not the outcome of Jewish lobbying.Ever heard of Richard Perle,Douglas Feith,Paul Wolfowitz or the paper “A clean break,a new strategy for securing the realm”?They all have one thing in common…
@Mari: 10,000 Christians massacred? You have some imagination for someone over eighty-five.
It was Eisner not Emperor Nero! The real killings started only when the **Freikorps** came to Munich to end the short-lived Soviet Republic.
I suppose the British veterans of the Boer War wondered what **they** had fought for when South Africa reverted to Afrikaaner rule.
@Someday:On WW1…
Exactly how would Germany’s becoming the most prosperous nation in Europe be a bigger threat to America than the vast British Empire, America’s traditional enemy– especially when Germany’s history of aggression, aggrandizement and colonial ambition was virtually non-existent when compared to England and France and even the US?
@Caleb: So it wasn’t extreme pressure coming from England (and other rather powerful and mysterious sources) that caused our dear Mr. Wilson, an “Anglophobe,” to let loose on the American public an utterly shameless, brazen and dishonest propaganda campaign that depicted Germans as monsters who bayoneted infants, systematically raped women and tortured prisoners (what Soviet soldiers, under the influence of people like Ilya Ehrenburg, actually did during WW2, a war that had little to do with WW1, of course)? We were really fighting to save France. Oh, and to preserve democracy, self-determination and freedom for all of the countries in God’s world.
Thanks.
@john sumner: It wasn’t how prosperous Germany would be that concerned us but how highly militarized she already was, and how efficient at killing Frenchmen at least at the start of the war. Then there was the matter of Belgian neutrality.
Germany was late in acquiring overseas colonies but demanded her “place in the sun”.
To Franklin Ryckaert:
I’m surely preaching to the converted, but if you’ve not already read this analysis of the Iraq War and who was pushing it, I recommend it.
http://www.4shared.com/document/900X2C6i/The_Transparent_Cabal.htm
@Caleb:
Galeb, Some 6 months before the USA’s entry into the war Roosvelt had setup, using weasel words “Neutrality Patrols” which amounted to US Navy escorts of British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland. They did attack German u-boats, aircraft and vessels. Hitler gave strict orders to minimise confrontation with US Naval Craft to avoid war. He can hardly have been unaware of the risk of war, because after Perl Harbor was attacked Hitler declared war on the US. It was merely a formalisation of what had been happening anyway.
Pre WWII , Germany was becoming more productive than England industrially , so that England was hell bent on holding on to their market share.
It was world jewry who wanted war and was the driving force , but it was made easier by the animosity of market competition . Jewry exploits natural division as a tactic .
I was the same with Iraq , in that Jewry wanted war and it was made easier with the support of some key industry .
Jewry exploits natural division across the board , as a very old and very successful tactic . It is only possible due to jewish advantage of being global and acting as a fifth column of agitators and instigators on both sides .
Industry is not capable of creating war , industry is only capable of being co-opted .
Leftists tend to solely blame industry ( capitalism ) , as they are ignorant of real politics . They are not jew wise .
Blaming capitalism only plays in to Jewry’s hands .
@Mari:
No, the kidnapping was several years earlier. Ironically, the baby was kidnapped and murdered by a German immigrant. Another argument to end all immigration.
That immigrant got in illegally fleeing burgularly warrants out for him in Germany.
In a word …
patsy .
@Caleb: Before the outbreak of WW1, England’s fear of Germany had everything to do with its becoming the most important power in Europe. This had little to do with its supposed military strength, and much to do with the rapid advancement of industry, technology, social programs, education and culture. In short, Germany was becoming a model that rivaled others.
England, never being content with its vast power, military and empire, and following its contemptible “Balance of Power” policy, encouraged Russia and France to view Germany as a dangerous threat. Thanks to that enlightened approach, Germany essentially found itself surrounded by hostile countries.
Why would Germany attack “neutral” Belgium? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that small British and French forces were already in “neutral” Belgium, and that they had good reason to fear being attacked from that country.
And what did Germany do when it had, for all intents and purposes, won that war on both fronts? It tried to make a rather generous offer of peace. Let France be France, let England be England, let Germany be Germany, and so forth. (After all, what did they do when they defeated France so badly in the Franco-Prussian War? They certainly did not take over France). They did want their power over their colonies to be respected. And they wanted to have the right to have a navy big enough to defend its interests (they did not even demand parity with the British Imperial Navy). Was that generous enough for England? Nope.
Uncle Scam was waiting in the wings. And what’s a couple more million dead, anyway?
@Mari:
If you mean with that German immigrant Bruno Hauptmann,who was indeed arrested,indicted and executed for the crime,you might be mistaken.To the end Hauptmann proclaimed his innocence.The gold certificates as part of the ransom of the $50,000 that was paid for Lindbergh’s baby and were found in his house belonged,he said to his friend and business partner Isidor Fisch. Fisch was a German Jew who had emigrated to the US in 1925 and settled in New York where he worked as a cutter in the fur trade.In 1932 Fisch met Hauptmann and became his friend and business partner.About Fisch Wikipedia says:
After the crime had happened Fisch showed even more strange behaviour:
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia.
So,there you have it: a Jew who was far more likely guilty of the kidnap and murder of Lindbergh’s baby than the German immigrant Bruno Hauptmann, who was probably at most an accomplice.The fact that Fisch took only a small amount of the ransom money with him on his flight to Germany seems to indicate a political rather than a financial motive for his crime.But why would a lonely petty swindler as Isidor Fisch have a political motive for murder?One would rather suspect a conspiracy behind him.Would we be far off the mark if we suspected the same ethnic group as Isidor Fisch belonged to and that saw in Lindbergh’s rising popularity a danger to its interests?
You’ll notice that jewry often uses a patsy who is guilty of some other crime . That way the dupe looks and acts guilty when arrested .
Jews are experts at framing . It comes from a history in organized crime and various dirty tricks and from making a pact with evil . Jewry put the E in evil .
Excellent comment, F.R.
Anyone interested in Jewish organized crime would do well to read this book, conveniently online if you don’t mind reading off a screen. Robert Friedman, now deceased, gives a stunning insight into who the real “Russian Mafia” is. I believe he died of a mysterious tropical illness, but am not rushing to judgement.
http://robert-friedman-red-mafiya.blogspot.com/
Ironically, the baby was kidnapped and murdered by a German immigrant.
I would change that to …
Not surprisingly , it was a German immigrant who was framed for the Lindbergh crime as it served to create anti-German sentiment in the nation , there by furthering jewish plans for yet another fratricidal war .
@Trenchant:
Thanks ,
And , also , David Duke has a great youtube video on the
” Russian ” mob .
Folks,after all these comments,would you agree with my (self made) saying:
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Folks,after all these comments,would you agree with my (self made) saying:
Other peoples have ethnic Mafias,but the Jewish people is an ethnic Mafia
Agreed .
I have one too …
Another way of saying ” history” is ” jewish crime report” .
@Caleb: US strategists were indeed very concerned that in 1941 Japan would attack the USSR.
Here is an article by John (no friend of the Israel Lobby) Mearsheimer which gives a brief summary of the reasons for the US entering WWs 1 & 2 Why China’s Rise Will Not Be Peaceful
(I don’t want to encourage the cranks to go off on tangents but, Lindbergh believed Hauptman was guilty, remarking that he was magnificently built but had eyes like a wild boar)
@Overagainst:
Overagainst is “of the Tribe”.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Overagainst is “of the Tribe”.
Yeah , notice how it is trying to steer the discussion towards kosherism .
If it is not of the tribe then it might as well be .
@Overagainst: Indeed, there was plenty of evidence against Richard Hauptmann: the ransom note in his handwriting, the ladder constructed out of wood found in his home, his long history as a second story man back in Germany.
Thank you for the article.
@Overagainst:
(I don’t want to encourage the cranks to go off on tangents but, Lindbergh believed Hauptman was guilty, remarking that he was magnificently built but had eyes like a wild boar)
Well there you have it folks , nothing to see here . It says that Lindy said he thought the German was guilty and that he had eyes like a wild boar . So it must be true . Questions answered and case closed . It’s all kosher again .
LOL
@Bear: That’s what Nazi foreign minister Ribbentrop said to the American ambassador when he handed him his passports on December 10, 1941: “**Ihre Praesident waelt diesen Krieg. Jezt hat er ihn!**” (Your President wanted this war. Now he has it!)
Hitler’s u-boats had a field day with American merchant shipping for the first six months. After that, the supreme folly of his decision to go to war with the USA began to be felt.
Oh and shockingly it known as Caleb agrees !
Well there you have it . It’s all just “crankism”.
lol
@John hearns:
Folks,after all these comments,would you agree with my (self made) saying:
Other peoples have ethnic Mafias,but the Jewish people is an ethnic Mafia
It’s just a survival strategy . It is repugnant yes , but to them it is/was survival .
I am wondering what the global reaction will be when all things are revealed some day soon . Of course there is much revelation already .
Incredibly, one Jewish “hero” (named Lon Horiuchi) has not been forgiven:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/karma-on-the-floor/
@thm: “How rare is it today to find a public figure with the courage of Charles Lindbergh, who will not back down when accused of anti-Semitism?”
You’re right, Lindbergh was a great man. Unfortunately, he eventually did back down, though. After World War 2, you heard very little from him about Jewish influence. By the 1960′s he was pretty much devoted to environmentalism and redeeming his earlier white advocacy by championing third world primitives.
Even great men want to be loved by their public.
@John hearns:
Did you notice that when these people’s lies are exposed they resort to the most ridiculous arguments?That is another give away of their membership “of the Tribe”.That a man is a more likely to be guilty of a murder because he “had eyes like a wild boar” rather than a man who applied for a passport on the same day the victim of the murder was found dead and who bought a ticket for a boat shortly after the ransom was paid with notes of the same money with which that ransom was paid, is beyond ridiculous.And of course his co-Tribal Caleb cannot contain himself to join in!It is simply fun to see their behaviour!
BTW your saying:”History” is “Jewish crime report” is even better than mine and sadly so true.Hopefully once a true history book will be written.
@Jim: He was not a bad man but he was naive about politics, and war – as a combat pilot he was rather tender-hearted .
@Franklin Ryckaert:
That a man is a more likely to be guilty of a murder because he “had eyes like a wild boar” rather than a man who applied for a passport on the same day the victim of the murder was found dead and who bought a ticket for a boat shortly after the ransom was paid with notes of the same money with which that ransom was paid, is beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, why would it be felt necessary to be ridiculous about it
anyway ? Do they have some kind of weird dislike for german carpenters of the early 20th century ?
BTW your saying:”History” is “Jewish crime report” is even better than mine and sadly so true.
Yeah, so true and sad,
I think it is a case where they are in so deep that it is something they can’t face up to it. I think they need a way out to save face without having to be known as a race/religion of the world’s greatest criminals. It’s not something that looks good at parties and stuff. “Hi David ! I heard your guys killed the Kennedys and the Csars and you guys were behind 911 and you worked to start WW I and WWII and the red terror and … and … ”
You talk about embarrassing !
It must suck to be them.
@Trenchant:
Thanks for the heads-up, Trenchant. I’m now immersed in their murk and mud, thanks to you.
Most of those frequenting this site are up to speed, but just in case, Michael Piper Collins shows the confluence of interests behind the JFK hit. Given his conclusion about who commissioned the assassination, it’s not surprising that he wasn’t overwhelmed by publishing offers, or feted by Hollywood. The ADL have given him hell.
http://www.4shared.com/document/He747qAm/Michael_Collins_Piper_-_Final_.htm
@john sumner: European war was fought under the old rules in 1871 — perhaps for the last time. The loser paid some millions, ceded a few border provinces and hoped he’s be luckier next time.
Some “historians”, like Niall Ferguson, blame Britain’s entry in the 1914-18 war for turning it from a European to a World war.
It is proposed that Britain **would** have violated Belgian neutrality had Germany not done so first but this is the first I hear even of French let alone British troops being in Belgium prior to the Germans overrunning the country.
@Jim: Most people are struck by Charles Lindbergh’s having never in thirty years apologized for his pro-Nazi utterances even after the liberation by US troops of Bergen-Belsen and Dachau.
Lindbergh was allowed by President Roosevelt to join the Pacific war effort but strictly as a civilian. He apparently gave the Army Air Corps pilots some valuable tips on economy cruising. There is no reliable evidence that Lindbergh ever flew combat missions during World War II — or any other time.
@Mari:
One of the illusions that Brits of a certain age cling to is that Germany was about to invade the UK. There is zero evidence that this was a reality. An eye opener for me was visiting Berwick upon Tweed on the Scottish borders where invasion of the area was a reality and Berwick exchanged hands a dozen times before the Act of Union. The fortifications reflect the reality of military conflict between England and Scotland. There is nothing comparable on the Southern coast line for the simple reason that invasion was close to impossible. Only the duped would believe other wise. Unfortunately the British people are too “far gone” to cope with geopolitical realities and I am deeply pessimistic about the near future as one duped generation follows another on this “sceptered isle”.
@ KMac
I don’t know why no one creates a mass distribution publication aimed at White people? A publication that was implicitly White, with a couple of stories in it that are explicitily White.
A tabloid publication format that is very cheap to publish like the Nation Magazine, or black & white supermarket tabloids etc. A publication that could be given away nationally, and not be so over the top that advertisers would run from it.
Probably, a lack of work ethic on the part of White champions, holds back any effort along these lines.
An updated version of Readers Digest featuring White people and their interests would work in my opinion.
To get a message across, it’s not necessary to be over the top, or radical. That’s not how good political propaganda is made.
Very good and very timely. Ex-Army links to this and makes a comparison of Lindbergh to Ron Paul here{
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2011/08/lindbergh-got-it-right.html
The British (and their Jewish apologists) always provide elaborate excuses for British aggression and mass murder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Boer_War
The rights of Belgium are deemed important enough to fight a world war over. The rights of Transvaal, Orange Free State and Ireland are nonexistent.
@icr:
This is true and unless Britain reverts to the Catholic faith then we will be the source of more trouble in the years ahead.
Lindbergh was talking sense. But his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, had some pretty strange ideas. She would rather see a war in which millions of Christians, Aryans would die, rather than see exposure of the Jews that could lead to a pogrom. Liberal/Jewish/Christian brainwashing.
Professor, I searched around for the Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech but only found the same 9 minutes that you have. I estimate that around 15 minutes of the full speech is lost. Probably the entire speech would have been around 25 minutes.
@icr: Though King Albert and his hopelessly antiquated army were to be admired for their resolute stand (“I rule a kingdom, not a road.”), Belgium in 1914 was no more the point than was Danzig in 1939. It was a matter of taking a stand against aggression and being aware that the next target or the one after that was going to be you.
John hearns and Franklin Ryckaert are going on about 9/11 now, they need to call 9-1-1 and check themselves in for a psychiatric evaluation instead of wasting everybody’s time by going off on absurd tangents.
It was not I but Lindbergh who mentioned Hauptman’s eyes and TOO has a current article on characterology, read “Ludwig F. Clauss: Racial Style, Racial Character (Part II) by Tom Sunic”.
Lindbergh heard the voice of the man who collected the ransom money and he identified it as Hauptmann’s. John F. Condon talked to the man face to face and also identified Hauptman as the man. Condon’s original description of the man who collected the ransom money fitted Hauptmann, right down to his having unusually small eyes. Moreover, wording in the ransom note, the use of a homemade ladder, the contacting of Condon after his letter appeared in the ”Bronx Home News” and Arthur Koehler’s matching of wood in a Bronx lumber yard to the same batch as the wood in one of the rails of the kidnapper’s ladder all suggested a man with Hauptmann’s profile, i.e. a south German carpenter living in the Bronx. By matching nail holes to the joists in the loft, Arthur Koehler found that one of the rails of the ladder was actually made from a piece of wood removed from Hauptmann’s attic floor which was conclusive. Hauptmann had a criminal record in his home country for using a ladder to burgle a mayor’s house.
For an older man like Lindbergh to fly dangerous missions (and ground attack was the most dangerous) was quite something, he was not afraid to take risks and he did persuade the a plane manufacturer to send him to study aircraft performances under combat conditions.- here.
I think WW2 revisionism is a tar baby and nationalists should steer well clear of it.
Caleb’s latest distortion: “Lindbergh was allowed by President Roosevelt to join the Pacific war effort but strictly as a civilian. . . . There is no reliable evidence that Lindbergh ever flew combat missions during World War II — or any other time.”
How many more threads will be hijacked and run into the ground by this cyberweasel before Professor MacDonald’s patience with him is exhausted, I wonder. He is, I believe, a far more pernicious presence than the long-banned David Longley (though I certainly don’t miss Longley either). When Caleb and Someday start tag-teaming in faux disagreement, as they have begun doing of late, their insidiousness becomes virtually palpable—or perhaps I should say “e-palpable”.
Thanks in part to generations of miseducation, however, many readers, I fear, still don’t see these commenters as the deceitful and dishonest foes they are. (Where, alas, is the “nanny state” when it’s really needed!) I hope that other regular commenters will join me in pledging never to interact with Caleb and his ilk as we await the happy day when they sink, unmourned, beneath the cyberwaves.
@Caleb:
“Most people are struck by Charles Lindbergh’s having never in thirty years apologized for his pro-Nazi utterances even after the liberation by US troops of Bergen-Belsen and Dachau.”
I guess you could make the case that he only presented his case when he felt it was important to do so, and after WW2 the argument about the jewish role in pushing us towards war was mostly academic.
I still think, however, his silence on racial issues during the 1960′s was, at least in part, the same thing you saw with George Wallace during the 1960′s – an attempt to salvage his public image and legacy.
@Pierre de Craon:
Thanks in part to generations of miseducation, however, many readers, I fear, still don’t see these commenters as the deceitful and dishonest foes they are. (Where, alas, is the “nanny state” when it’s really needed!) I hope that other regular commenters will join me in pledging never to interact with Caleb and his ilk as we await the happy day when they sink, unmourned, beneath the cyberwaves.
I would think that most readers would see them for disingenuous thugs that they are .
I was going to reply to one of them but you make a good point in that ignoring them is probably best .
Yes , it would be nice to see them sink beneath the waves
( bubble bubble and big smiles all around ) , but that is already happening . It’s a tangled web they weave .
I am not for any form of censorship , but maybe it would be nice to see a warning label applied to each of their posts .
A label like : ” warning ! dirty rotten deceptive poster alert ! “
Caleb
August 27, 2011 – 11:03 pm | Permalink
@Mari: 10,000 Christians massacred? You have some imagination for someone over eighty-five.
For whom do you work Caleb? ADL, AJC, AIPAC?
Fact Eisener and his fellow Jewish communists murdered 10,000 during their short lived reign in Munich.
Jews like you lie about history all the time Caleb. Jewish lies may hide, but can’t change the truth.
Franklin Ryckaert
August 28, 2011 – 7:57 am
Thanks for the info on Isador Fisch. Hauptmann was in and out of jail in Germany from about age 17. He specialized in 2nd story burglaries. He selected rich important households. Well naturally, who wants to rob a poor household.
His MO ws to bring a ladder along. He would climb up to a 2nd story window while the family and servants were at dinner.
That’s how he got the Lindberg baby. Mom and nanny put the baby to bed. Mom and nanny went downstairs to eat dinner. A couple hours later nanny checked on him and he was gone. Whoever took him came in through the 2nd story window.
With his criminal record in Germany and expertise in burgulary he was a perfect patsy. Wouldn’t he have implicated Fischer though?
Was Lindberg voicing the truth about Jews in 1932? It would be interesting to know. His wife’s father was VP of Morgan Bank which is heavily involved with Rothschild bank.
To the extent that politicians use WWII “the good war” as a justification for present and future bellicosity, war revisionism is vitally important.
@buckle:
Reduced to comical impotence, it appears that for the remainder of their history they will be wholly occupied by the unheroic project of destroying themselves in the most humiliating way imaginable.
s
Franklin Rykcart
“Coincidentally,Fisch had applied for a passport on May 12 1932,which was the same day that the Lindbergh baby was found dead .On December 9,1932 Fisch set sail on the ocean liner Manhattan for a visit to Germany,shortly after the ransom money was paid by the Lindbergh family
If the baby was found dead May 12 1932 why did the family pay a ransom in late fall 1932 months after the baby was found dead?
I accept your theory that Fisch was involved. Hauptman hoever, did learn his second story and dinner hour timing in numerous successful burgalaries in Germany.
They probably worked together. Fisch learned about Hauptmann’s methods and got the idea of going into kidnapping a child from his or her bedroom.
Most criminals proclaim their innocence. This was not the first crime Hauptmann was arrested for. He had been arrested and served time several times n Germany.
Read “Supermob” by Gus Russo. It is a real eye opener. It is about the 1900 Russian Jews whose sons went to law school so as to perfect organized crime. Sidney Korshak, Jake Arvey, Jake Factor and hundreds more.
Jake Factor was the brother of make up magnate Max Factor. He was a major organized crime thug. When these super mafiosos died they were all praised to the heavens in the Jewish community papers as philanthropists.
So was Armand Hammar, Stalin’s emissary to the west.
icr
Do you mean Lon Horichui is really a Jew? Or just a jewish hero for killing goys?
He is on my enemies list.
icr Very, very good. Excellent!!!!!
The rights of Belgium are deemed important enough to fight a world war over. The rights of Transvaal, Orange Free State and Ireland are nonexistent.
@Jim: Lindbergh’s public statements were anti-British more than antisemitic. After the war EVERYBODY talked about the British role in getting us in World War II, up to and including Churchill himself.@Pierre de Craon:
@Pierre de Craon: WHAT distortion?
Lindbergh never flew air-to-air combat missions. Not, at least, any that can be verified. In truth, all the stories about Lindbergh flying warplanes in the Pacific are War Stories told by ex-servicemen.
It is indisputable that Lindbergh held no military rank at the time. He was a civilian.
@mari:
Thanks, it’s on the to-read list. Reading the Amazon comments was a laugh, too, the one-star reviews particularly.
@Caleb:
You wrote that, “Most people are struck by Charles Lindbergh’s having never in thirty years apologized for his pro-Nazi utterances even after the liberation by US troops of Bergen-Belsen and Dachau.”
Bergen-Belsen was not liberated by US troops. That matter aside, do you share the sentiments of “most people”? If so, why do you believe that Lindbergh should have apologized?
@mari:
Hammer’s money put Al Gore through private school and college, though I believe this is common knowledge.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/Gore+Oxy.html
@David G: Perhaps “apologize” is the wrong word. How about “express regret”? [Lindbergh never did that, either.] It’s considered good form to express regret when you turn out to have been dead wrong, as Charles Lindbergh was about the Nazi Germans. Even Joan Baez publicly regretted her wholehearted support of the Hanoi regime once the Boat People began telling stories of persecution, imprisonment in re-education camps, confiscation of property and near starvation.
Quite right. I meant Buchenwald, although Bergen-Belsen provided some horrific sights to the British soldiers who came upon it.
@Caleb:
If I were Lindbergh I would at most express regret for supporting the Nazis because of their policy towards Slavic peoples.As for their sensible and humane policy towards Jews (resettlement and putting these parasites to work) I woud praise them.But what else can you expect from a righteous (“tsadik”) anti-Semite like me?
(now report that to your boss Abe Foxman!).
@Caleb: It has been shown beyond significant doubt that the human catastrophe the Allies came upon at Bergen-Belson had a great deal to do with their own atrocities. Namely, the merciless bombing of Germany, especially civilian targets.
It becomes quite difficult to properly look after the welfare of any kind of prisoners when you are no longer able to protect and feed your own people– hundreds of thousands of whom are being literally and purposefully incinerated alive.
I don’t see anyone posting the
http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp
link which has mp3′s & transcript of Sept 11th 1941 .
Strange how Sept. 11th keeps coming up through history.
Kevin, When you say “unable to find the rest of the speech” do you mean beyond 9min? The transcript on the site above has about four sentences beyond the audio mp3.
@Someday:
Someday (Some Jew),how typically Jewish you react again!When confronted with an unpleasant truth you attack the messenger and call him crazy.The truth about 9/11 and the whole of WW ll is most condemning to the ethnic Mafia you people really are,therefore you urge us all the time to “steer clear of it”.
As for Hauptmann being guilty,he obviously was a habitual burgler but not a habitual kidnapper or murderer of babies.Clearly he was used for that purpose by Fisch who let him do all the risky work, such as kidnapping the baby and collecting the ransom, while he himself stayed in the background.When the baby was abducted he murdered him (with typical Jewish cruelty).When the ransom was collected he fled, leaving Hauptmann with most of the money at risk of being arrested.This is how Jews operate: commit a crime but make sure another is caught.The rest of my plausible speculation still stands.The fact that Fisch took only a small portion of the money indicates that his motive was not financial but political. And the fact that he was an unimportant loner indicates that he was working for others.Those were most probably American Jews who saw Lindbergh as a threat.The whole thing of demanding a ransom was only to make it appear an ordinary crime,he was not really interested in the money.It all makes perfectly sense.
Your passionately trying to put all the blame on a goy while trying to protect a Jew is typically Jewish.Jews do that all the time.Not all Jews are criminals,but nearly all Jews try to protect Jews when they are.In that sense nearly all Jews are complicit and is my saying that Jews are an ethnic Mafia correct.
Finally, you say:
No,it was not you it was Overagainst who mentioned Hauptmann’s eyes.Is this a slip of the tongue and are you not betraying yourself as having Overagainst as you sock puppet?
Hmm,double exposure:1) You are a Jew,2) You have Overagainst as your sock puppet.Are you sure continuing here still makes sense?
@mari:
Mari,there is indeed a discrepancy between the information on the Lindbergh kidnapping and that on Isidor Fisch,both in Wikipedia.From the article on Lindbergh I gather that the kidnapping took place on March 1,1932;the ransom was paid on April 2,1932 and the dead body was found on May 12, 1932.From the article on Isidor Fisch I gather that he applied for a passport on that same date.So far so good.The next information however makes no sense:
.
The ransom money was paid on April 2,1932,so December 9,1933 (not 1932 as you write) cannot be “shortly” after that date.I have not found additional information to solve this riddle.Maybe it is simply a printing mistake.
Caleb, still think Franklin Ryckaert is KM ?
Re. air-to-air combat missions there were very few Japanese planes to shoot at by the time Lindbergh managed to inveigle his way into the war zone he flew the Vought F4U Corsair on ground attack, my link above is to Vought and there is further detail online at ‘Leatherneck’ mag.
(Wiki)
By combat: 189
By enemy anti-aircraft artillery: 349
Accidents during combat missions: 230
Accidents during non-combat flights: 692
Yes Lindbergh was a civilian, he didn’t have to take those risks.
Don’t knock ‘War Stories’ unless you have some of your own.
“Even Joan Baez publicly regretted her wholehearted support of the Hanoi regime once the Boat People began telling stories of persecution, imprisonment in re-education camps, confiscation of property and near starvation.”
And as soon as she did that the pro Chinese and Vietnamese communist commie Jews who run the music and entertainment industry dumped her. Her career was ended because of her heresy. She was practically unheard of after 1976.
She hd a great voice. But the only reason she made records and got promoted was because her parents were very left wingers. Dad was a marxist professor. She was raised that way and of course believed what her parents told her.
The Jew commies of the music industry grabbed her up rigth away. She was the perfect mouth piece for commie propaganda via music. She had a great success because she did have a great voice.
But within days of coming out against the Vietnamese communists and the Chinese communists behind them her career was over.
Trenchant
August 30, 2011 – 12:06 am | Permalink
@mari:
Hammer’s money put Al Gore through private school and college, though I believe this is common knowledge.
Hammer’s money put Gore’s father in the Senate.
When Hammer died he, like Sid Korshak, Jake Factor and oher criminals was abslutely glorified in the Jewish Press.
No mention of his blood soaked career in Russia as Stalin’s right hand man.
Here is something interesting I think you will all enjoy.
NY Post ^ | August 30, 2011 | JOSH MARGOLIN
Funny, she doesn’t look Jewish. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is facing a new challenge: He’s having trouble raising money from some Jewish donors who mistakenly believe one of his opponents, Michele Bachmann, is Jewish. Some Jewish donors are telling fund-raisers for Romney, a Mormon, that while they like him, they’d rather open their wallets for the “Jewish candidate,” who they don’t realize is actually a Lutheran, The Post has learned. “It’s a real problem,” one Romney fund-raiser said. “We’re working very hard in the Jewish community because of Obama’s Israel problem.”
@Mari: I’m sorry Mari, but I think if you research the matter of the Lindberg baby kidnapping you’ll agree that Herr Hauptman was wrongly convicted and that the case has the prints of a gent named Isidore Fish all over it.