PDA

View Full Version : "Krauts": The Image of Germans in Britain Worsens



Dr. Brandt
Sunday, January 16th, 2005, 01:04 PM
Ran this through a translator:

"Krauts"

The image of the Germans in Great Britain worsens. The governments like each other, the peoples unfortunately not.

by Juergen Kroenig


Whenever a soldier of the Wehrmacht was shot, broke in the fully occupied cinema at the Londoner Leicester Square loud rejoicing out: If steven Spielberg knows, which emotions are set free by his war epos "saving private Ryan" with young Englishmen? These feeling outbreaks are not by any means an isolated phenomenon. Who asks around, experiences alarming . Children from English-German mixed marriages, completely anglisiert and without a breath of accent, are rideculed by schoolmates and excluded. Pupils of the German school in the Londoner quarter Richmond had to experience again and again that they were insulted on the home travel in the bus by English youngsters as "Nazis". Other tried in vain to win friends in the football club where even the coach addressed them only as "Hitlerboys". Many German-English married couples with offspring at the schoolable age know such experiences, of which they only report with hesitation ; no need to pour "oil in the fire", said to me a mother. In summer 1996, after a television documentation for the BBC, in which I had researched the reasons for the increasing Germanophobie on the island, reached me a tide of letters, faxes and telephone calls. Germans, which live for years in the country and had believed to be integrated , complained about the animosity of their environment. During the nineties once friendly neighbours went on distance; in the mail box they found again and again newspaper articles, mostly from papers like DAILY Mail, express and DAILY telegraph, full with anti-German Tirades and reproaches like the " because of European Union British must pay for the German pension deficit".

It was not always so bad. Until the end of the eighties the British called the Germans their best friends in Europe. Diplomats celebrated at that time from the "silent alliance", despite the antipathy between Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl. But when Gallup asked 1992 the last mark for the "best friends of the British" (meanwhile it does not want to know anybody so exactly more), called instead of 28 only 12 per cent of the asked ones the Germans.

Also the confidence in the allies on the Rhine was lost. 1986 expressed 28 per cent "large confidence", only 18 per cent possessed " no confidence at all". The numbers from October 1995 meanwhile signaled a sharp turn: Only 10 per cent "trust" the Germans, 35 per cent possess " no confidence at all". The fear of a Renaissance of national socialism grew at the same time. 1977 counted already 23 per cent on it, 1992 this number rocketed high to 53 per cent and since that time settled down there. The good Germans, were the divided Germans.

The reason for the deeply seizing tendency reversal is, which we may assume, the end of the postwar order, in which divided Germany was merged into a European safety system. The good Germans, that were only the divided Germans. Now it is correct that the British, mainly its largest tribe the Englishmen, jump around quite harsh with other nations. Whether Frogs, Dagos, or Whops - thus Frenchmen, Spaniards or black ones -, they all get their share of bashing. But we "Krauts" hold in their rank of Daemonologie incontestablly a privileged position. "Krautbashing" is pervasive, told me an English friend, whom its occupation leads as a computer specialist into countless enterprises in the region London.

There are many reasons: a touch of unwillingly confessed respect, a little envy and probably also fear. English soccer fans provide easement after defeats of their team against Germany with a stubborn "two world wars and a World Campionship". In finer circles, in which one prefers rugby and Cricket, the subtle form of the argument is maintained, by obeying Noel Cowards ironical request "Don't be bastly to the Hun" exactly the same, as it was meant.

Certainly, the national and economic relations between Germany and Great Britain is not affected directly by the chnage of atmosphere. That may be a reason for the fact that the elite at Themse and Rhine did not notice or did not want to notice the extent of the long time animosety.

It is however questionably, whether BMW would have decided to the purchase of Rover, one on the idea would before have come to constitute the psychological profile of the typical Rover driver: It is a nationalconservative patriotic counterpart to the man with hat in the Mercedes, that it absolutely convinced of a notoriously susceptible, miserably conceived car, however because it was produced by a British enterprise. It was from the beginning clear that a part of the Rover clientele would not even buy a clearly improved car, because the company is now just in German hand.

The ability of politicians to counterpart dark instincts was meanwhile always limited and is nowadays only quite the same [That obviously doesnt count when dealing with Jews. How agile and restless politicians can become then, we can see every day.] . What uses is a speech in the House of Commons, in which a delegate speaks against Xenophobia, if it is not noticed at all? Debates and decisions of the parliament are only economically registered even by the BBC. In the meantime the media the more merrily bash the Germans. German diplomats and journalist gave it up long time ago to take notice of every single punch below the beltline through the media. Some of our compatriots try, to exceed the British in the Attituede "more stiff upper lip" - one does not want to overreact or or be accused of lack of humor .

If at times it turns realy ugly, the Ambassadors Gerhardt von Moltke formulates, (whose name British Jounalisten exactly to such pour the joy is like the one its predecessor, )aron von Richthofen), an fine-intimate protest letter, without however having any illusions over its effect. In all other respects it is simply impossible and probably not even desirable to receive all smaller and larger insults - for instance the casually interspersed side blows against "Krauts" in Big BREAKFEAST, the commercial breakfast television of Channel 4; or the adverse remarks, which flow into tv criticisms, on cooking chanels and into art reviews. "no other people is disparaged by the British as much as the Germans, perhaps with exception of the Arabs and Jews" [LOL What? Jews are loved and cuddled by the Anglo! worshipped! Another dumb attempt by the writer to get on the boat of Antisemitism and equate british german hatred with it] :

This judgement passed Hugo Young of the Guardian, a long time before the journalist and writer A A Gill portraied the Germans to the four million readers of the Sunday Times as anal fixed, blood-stained Psychopaths - "Why dont we just admitt it, we like all Europeans - hate them" .

Before scarcely three years Tony Blair, at that time still opposition leader, designated it as a "particularly mean aspect" of the political discourse in Great Britain to speak that it had become acceptable, "about Germany and the Germans in the same intonation, which English politicians had reserved before 80 years for Jews and before 100 years for Irish". The labour leader assigned the responsibility for it to the Tories. Finally 1990 a Minister of the Thatcher cabinet had to already take the hat, because he had equated Kohl with Hitler and had called the European Union an instrument for the introduction of German supremacy in Europe had called.

Nicholas Ridley was kicked, because his frankness was politically not yet acceptable at that time, briefly before the end of the postwar era. In a small circle such a thing could be expressed, not however publicly. That also changed since the German reunification. Otherwise in John Major time as a Prime Minister the government banks would have been depopulated. It is not only the fundemental national-conservative or members of the war generation, which express their dislike of against Germany.

To the Right and left Inteligenzia the Germans are considered, to quote the Editorial of the culture magazine Granta, as "ugly, dangerously, calculably" - calculably in its incalculability and mental instability. Since beginning of the nineties the concern is expressed that the Germans will never be content to be only one power under others in Europe. This fear connects itself with a not at all rare judgement by the faustischen German character. Since a long time It does not apply as unfine to express publicly that the Germans are specifically susceptible for evil. The authoress Martha Gellhorn assumed, the German nation was collectively unstable: "I think, there sits a gene loosely"; the historian Andrew Robert speaks of the "genius" of the Germans - and he is not sure whether bomber Harris succeeded to finally destroy the dark side of the german character.

Regularly one encounters diagnoses like "Germany is still sick and dangerous", and the historian John Charmley justified, "why we will unfortunately never be able to trust the Germans". The division solved the "German problem" only temporarily. "300 years of conditioning could not be reverted over night" .

Naturally it is completely legitimate to express such opinions. [Oh yes! Just like you are free to express such view on Jews, eh?] To be confronted with them again and again is part of the historical burden, with which we Germans must live. Finally we put ourselves this load on.[Ahhh the typicall slimy German of today. Its our own fault to be hated! Because we were so eeevil! Asshole!] Humor is a coat under you hide the dagger.

Besides there are some representatives of the media and political class of Great Britain, which estimate modern Germany. A decidedly pro-German and mostly also still pro-European minority in the political and media classes will not tired to lift fight against Germanophobie. Politicians such as Alan Watson and Giles Radice wrote differentiated books concerning the Germans. In these circles one is tried, the anti-German hysteria of the past years only as "boulevard press shouting" . But that is not longer possible. We can hardly compfort ourselves that many of the klishees and stereotypes which are circulated about us are only jokefully meant. Humor is, like the Anglist Hans Dieter Gelfert also rightly noticed, apart from sports for the Englishman the most important valve to react off aggressions.

The Englishmen developed the ability to an art form, to express certain things, which they mean quite seriously, with a twitch of an eye, "tongue in cheek" . The ironical presentation possess an advantage which should not be underestimated. She permits it to withdraw oneself behind the joke if one is provoked, and to insure that the matter was nevertheless not at all seriously meant. Even more, one can accuse that the other one has no sense of humor. Countless organizations dedicate themselves to improve the relations between our nations for instance the GermanBritish society and the Anglo German Association to the never-ending task. To this circle the GermanBritish forum joined, based from David Marsh, once journalist with the Financial Times, now in the bank world of the Londoner town center active. Now Peter Mandelson,[!!!!!!] Close friend of Blairs and still a politician with future, when its certainly considerable talents bring in president of the forum. But possibly its call could prove to medium manipulator here as spin doctor and rather as counterproductive.

The sterotype of the cranky, humorless, arrogant and all too thorough Germans became the component of the British psyche. The postwar generations have grown up with the always-same pictures: In films, TV serials, Cartoons, newspaper articles and TV adds tumble around stupid German NCOS, tightlipped SS Men with snarrling voices, humorless Buraucrats and those famous German beach holiday-makers, who reserve the best seats at beach or Swimmingpool with their towels according to general staff-plan in the morning-grey. (whereby the picture the German holiday-maker decided considered on their advantage proves that sterotypes are then particularly effective and long-lived, if they reflect actual behaviors.) English humor made brilliant jokes at our expense. The famous "Don't mention the war" episode of John Cleese in the TV serial Faulty Towers is an example admired all-side rightfully.

But the endless tide of jokes, war films, television commercial, the punning, the skillful wordplays in headlines, and again and again swearing to the dark German - everything together taken could be too much of the good. The world of the multi-channel television is described of optimists as chance: Undreamt-of possibilities for information and education opened; the free flow of information will help to diminish prejudices and to wake understanding for other cultures and peoples.[hahahaha ! Oh sure! Can u hear the jew media moguls laugh?]

But the commercialization of the media seems to cause the opposite. Everywhere is Infotainment on the advance. More strongly ever becomes the special, which sensational ones, which illustrates and described unusual ones searched. The place for differentiated analyses becomes scarcer. Even the BBC walks occasionally in the footprints of the Tabloids. To the Sun attack on Oskar Lafontaine, "the most dangerous man Europes ", BBC World" of people voice let come "to word, asked a few passerbys whether they would have fear of higher taxes than consequence of European harmonization.

Foreign investors would leave, were called the country there it, numbers of unemployed and prices became to snap upward. War's already. The pictures of the report were framed with flames: German perfectionism will leave "scorched earth" - that was the sublime message of the film report. Also in the German media somewhat changed. Our sterotype of Great Britain were once rather harmlessl - the charming strange island people with its eccentric preferences. "the looney British" or the "begging British" - headings in South German newspaper and picture - do not only betray increasing annoyance over permanent "Krautbashing"; the "ugly Anglosaxon", uptight, antisocial and cold, is about, to replace the fine Gentleman. In times of political and economic disconcertion peoples are inclined to react chauvinististic. Small causes are sufficient to let show up old resentment. No people is free of it, also not the British , whose unresolved European problem is linked to Germany with their attitude. In the conflict around "euro or Pound", which begins soon, this will again prove. Who wants peaceful with one another in Europe, should be warned.

OTO
Sunday, January 16th, 2005, 01:17 PM
"German-British Friendship" Lol.

Antigerman people, stand thogeter with bomber Harry and the War-monger Churchill.

Ok, not all, but most of them are Antigerman bastards.

Dieter_
Sunday, January 16th, 2005, 09:02 PM
I am 100% English and I love Germany. We are not all like that but I admit most English people are idiots.

I would hate German holidaymakers to get irritated with that one select person who happens to be pro-German, just because he is English. I have seen such mistakes being made over and over again...It is our worst downfall as Europeans...I try to wake up every Englishman I can about the Jewish problem...it's not easy but we have sympathisers in England so we don't want to make things worse by thinking they are all the enemy...There is simply a lot of ignorance about politics and history in England...That has to be admitted, nobody can deny it...

Dr. Brandt
Sunday, January 16th, 2005, 09:50 PM
I am 100% English and I love Germany. We are not all like that but I admit most English people are idiots.



You must be that rare exception to the rule. I think we Germans learned our lesson hard enough. We still have the Brits as occupants here.
Hitler was 100% pro British. He bent over backwards to come to an agreement with them. Even willing to spill german blood to protect and save the empire. What did we get as answer? Dresden, Hamburg, Köln ect.
Todays pathetic Germans are crawling on their bellys, constantly begging for forgivness for being german and existing, but it all doesn't help. the Idiots don't get that we will be hated regardless what we do. We will be hated and cursed even long after we have ceased to exist.

The Anglo World hates us as much as the jews do. As certain as the Amen in Church, the Anglos will declare War on us again if we free ourselves of our chains. I don't trust them farther than a snail can leap.

Tozoshin
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 04:24 PM
Dr. Brandt
The English I have met have to be the most politically correct of any 'Western' country. They seem to have whole-heartedly accepted 'modern' Britain - one cannot even make a few racist comments in their company without them falling into some type of trauma (though I am sure they would find some jokes on the expense of Germans quite amusing) - these are generally very well educated, otherwise intelligent people (Eton College, Oxford University). Btw what exactly is their problem with their car industry - seem to be rather incompetent in that regard...

FadeTheButcher
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 08:51 PM
Someone pointed out the other day on The Phora that Britain is not really a European country, that it is a lot like Turkey. Its quasi-European. Its part of Europe yet it is part of something else as well. Russia would be another example. It thinks of itself as a Eurasian nation. I agree with this assessment. Britain is just as much a part of North America as it is a part of Europe, if not even more so. Its like a North American island off the coast of Europe now. It used to be the center of the Anglo world. Now it exists on its periphery, like Australia and New Zealand, as the center of Anglo-Saxon civilization has shifted to North America.

k0nsl
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 09:11 PM
Someone pointed out the other day on The Phora that Britain is not really a European country.

I agree; it isn't.

http://holocaust-history.info/response12.html

Some of my thoughts. It's somewhat related to this issue.

-k0nsl

FadeTheButcher
Thursday, January 20th, 2005, 03:30 AM
Western civilization really doesn't exist in any meaningful sense anymore. North America is not part of Europe. And that's an interesting story in its own right. After Columbus discovered the New World, Europeans began to come to North America to exploit and dominate the continent. The Spanish must have looted billions upon billions of dollars worth of gold from Latin America. The American colonies in North America were also part of the British mercantile system and were systematically exploited in a similar fashion.

Then came the American Revolution, the first real crack in European hegemony over the world. This event was more or less ignored by the Europeans powers at the time which were shortly thereafter consumed by the Napoleonic wars. Even during the 19th century, Europeans paid very little attention to the developments going on in North America, so confident of their own superiority, even as the United States began to systematically expel each and every one of the major European powers from the New World.

The Northwest Territory. Florida. The Louisiana Purchase (a territory the size of Western Europe, purchased for a pittance, making the United States the ultimate winner of the Napoleonic Wars). Texas. California and the Southwest. Oregon. Alaska. Hawaii. As early as 1823, the United States was asserting its sovereignty over the entire Western Hemisphere. We systematically wiped out the Indians and herded them onto reservations. We humbled Mexico and took over half its national territory. A series of rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 19th century consolidated the heartland of North America into a common market of enormous size. Industrialization on a colossal scale commenced thereafter. And the expansion didn't stop there.

"At the same time the United States was forcing the French out of Mexico, it was dealing with Russians coming down from the north. Secretary of State William Seward made the historic purchase of Alaska from the Russian czar in 1867. It was ridiculed as "Seward's folly" at the time, but turned out to be one of the vitally important acquistions in American history. It gave the United States a huge piece of land strategically placed against the British in the Northwest, and it pushed the Russians entirely out of the Western Hemisphere and back into Siberia.

The United States also contested European, mostly Spanish power in Latin America, sending troops as early as 1832 to the Falkland Islands to reduce an Argentine garrison that was harrassing American ships. Between the Civil War and the Spanish-American War of 1898, the United States sent Marines to Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Haiti, and Uruguay.

In its march to supremacy, the fledgling American republic was even bold enough to deploy troops beyond the Western Hemisphere across the vast two oceans that separated it from the rest of the world. In 1813, President Jefferson sent troops to the South Pacific to the Marquesas Islands, and in 1815, to Tripoli and Algiers to deal with the Barbary pirates. President Jackson sent troops to Sumatra to shell and burn the coastal town of Quallah Bttoo. In 1843 and 1860, U.S. troops were sent to Liberia to protect American interests.

In 1843, American troops landed in Canton to protect Americans from hostile Chinese, returning in 1860 to defeat five thousand Chinese troops in pitched battle and establish a permanent American military presence there. In 1871, U.S. Marines attacked Korea, seizing two forts in a punative expedition. Even while the Civil War raged, President Lincoln dispatched troops to Japan and Panama. By 1900, the United States had established a military presence in the South Pacific sufficient to weather an international crisis with Germany over control of Sumatra."

Garrison, pp.67-68

In the late 19th century, we began to build a two ocean navy in order to project American power beyond the Western Hemisphere. Then came the Spanish-American War when we destroyed the remnants of the Spanish Empire. Cuba. Puerto Rico. Guam. The Phillippines. We now had a foothold in East Asia and began to extend our control over the Caribbean and Central and South America. A good example of this is how we created Panama so we could build the Panama Canal. Not long thereafter we were forcing the Open Door policy on China and had more or less made good on the threat in the Monroe Doctrine. What had began as thirteen pathetic colonies on the fringes of the civilzed world was now a colossal empire with the resources of an entire continent at its disposal. And that was at the beginning of the 20th century.

Europe discovered this in the Great War when American intervention was instrumental in deciding the outcome of the conflict. The League of Nations came out of this. Americans, having expelled Europe from half the world, were now beginning to assert themselves in Europe itself. The Entente ran up enormous debts with the United States during the war. Their war effort was sustained by the United States. This leverage was later used by the United States to advance its interests on the continent after the war.

Then came WW2, the second great collective act of European suicide within fifty years. Europeans once again took up their old habit of slaughtering each other by the millions over miniscule national differences. And once again, just as in the Great War, when things began to go wrong for the Western Allies they urged the U.S. to get involved in the conflict. Roosevelt, of course, was entirely willing to do so and when the dust settled the U.S. found itself in control of Western Europe and Japan (which made an enormous mistake by throwing in its lot with Germany).

The United States was now the most powerful country in the world and imposed the postwar international system on the rest of the planet. The British and French Empires collapsed shortly thereafter. The U.S. began to take over their remnants, from Vietnam to Greece. Then came Korea. The Cold War began shortly thereafter, which provided a convenient excuse for the United States to extend and consolidate its hegemony even further. After the Cold War, it was open season on the rest of the world. The U.S. quickly began to move into the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia. We have been building bases throughout this huge region for the past fifteen years now. Saudi Arabia. Israel. Kuwait. Turkey. Jordan. Egypt. The Gulf sheikdoms. Now Iraq. We control all of them.

American power is now global. There is nothing comparable to it in all of history.

"Such a view was completely understandable. The last fifteen hundred years of European history have been essentially multipolar. The major European powers incessantly competed against one another without any single power ever gaining undue advantage, whether during the medieval era of city-states or the modern era of nation-states. Even Britain at its prime during the nineteenth century was constrained by France, Russia, Spain, and Germany. During the reign of Queen Victoria, from 1837 to 1901, which marked the apex of British imperial power, Britain had to fight seventy-two separate military campaigns to keep its rivals at bay and its colonial holdings intact. The very notion of realpolitik is predicated upon the assumption of a balance of power between major states.

That the United States broke out of this multipolar framework to attain unipolar global dominance is an extraordinary achievement in the annals of history, not attained by any power since Rome two thousand years ago. Because the world had gotten so used to thinking in multilateral and multipolar terms, it took some time for the novelty of the historical situation to sink in."

Ibid., p.13

"As the twenty-first century gets under way, the primacy of American power is one of the few undisputed truths of international affairs. The United States dominates the world militarily with 436 bases in North America and Europe, 186 in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, 14 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 7 in the Middle East, and 1 in South Asia, 647 altogether. It has bases or base rights in over forty countries around the world and a navy with an array of aircraft carrier task forces that dominate every ocean. The U.S. Air Force has a presence on six of the world's continents.

The United States has developed an unrivaled mastery of high technology weaponry that has radically redefined the meaning of modern warfare and includes a massive nuclear arsenal on hair trigger alert, capable of destroying any enemy completely and the world several times over. It has the military capability of fighting on several fronts simultaneously and is building a national missle defense system to protect the American mainland from sneak missle attack. It almost certainly will weaponize space within the next decade, giving the United States essentially complete military control over global communications."

Ibid., p.25

"Yet what word but ''empire'' describes the awesome thing that America is becoming? It is the only nation that polices the world through five global military commands; maintains more than a million men and women at arms on four continents; deploys carrier battle groups on watch in every ocean; guarantees the survival of countries from Israel to South Korea; drives the wheels of global trade and commerce; and fills the hearts and minds of an entire planet with its dreams and desires."

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/burden.htm

I suppose you can say we have come a long way. North America orbits the world today like the Death Star in Star Wars.

Tozoshin
Thursday, January 20th, 2005, 04:55 AM
FadeTheButcher Agree fully with the article - America did make brilliant politics through the 19th and 20th centuries - an example of European snobbery against the New World is Voltaire's remark about the loss of New France - a loss of a 'few acres of snow' - however

Japan (which made an enormous mistake by throwing in its lot with Germany) is completely backwards. It was Germany who recieved little return from its Allies. The Anticomtern pact was designed to keep America out of Asia and Europe. Many Japanese military leaders thought they were invincible - from the Meiji Restauration onwards Japan had a string of non-stop victories - which lead some to come to the conclusion that through sheer willpower they could keep America out of Asia. Hitler vastly overestimated japanese power - it was expected that the asian conflict would bind most of the american forces.
Germany was doing quite nicely for itself - France was knocked out within a month, and England was thrown off the continent - with little chance of returning without american involvement. On the continent only Russia remained as any type of threat to german hegemony - which in the Finnish War came off as completely incompetent - perhaps a deciding factor leading Hitler to think it was bounty ripe for the plucking. Regardless that Barbarossa turned into a quagmire, without direct american involvement Stalin's chances of making it all the way to Berlin would have been far from likely (the Soviet Union was already bled white with american involvement - Hitler would have also been far less likely to make risky decisions).
Italy got Germany involved in southern Europe and North Africa - 2 areas where it had no real interests. Also Italy alienated the Arab population, which was decidingly Pro-German, through its colonial policies. (It should be remembered that Mussolini told France and England he would not uphold the Pact of Steel treaty - thereby strengthening their resolve to not negotiate with Hitler over Danzig.) Hitler should certainly have used the anti-colonial card as foreign policy when Britain refused to make peace in 1940.
The anti-comitern pact had only propaganda value - Germany would have been far better off if its allies had remained neutral.

Dieter_
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005, 07:13 PM
I know what you mean, Dr. Brandt.

Many English people, including my own colleagues...They are happy to submit themselves to a higher power, even if that power has not proven itself worthy...That power happens to the Judeo-masonic anti-culture which so few English people understand...If they did, they would be very embarrassed and change their views in no time...But there is a lot of apathy here and I am ashamed about that.

I feel closer to Germans than to most English people. I always thought they were smarter than the English. The English people you think of, are smug media types who have lead a comfortable material life by kissing the bottoms of you-know-who. I could not bring myself to do such a thing, the very thought repulses me.

For some unknown reason the English lack the will to self-determination that the Germans, Austrians and Finns have shown in their struggle against Europe's worst enemy. Or indeed in everyday life.

I openly look down upon people who fight for the British Army. The truth is, the British Army has never been a national army, it has been a tool of the international conspiracy for a very long time. The army draws it strength from the choices of the individual soldier to go to war. Judeo-masonry is the problem, but ignorance allows it to thrive, and it is the ignorance of most English people that annoys me so much.

Ahnenerbe
Monday, May 23rd, 2005, 05:46 AM
WW2, the second great collective act of European suicide within fifty years. Europeans once again took up their old habit of slaughtering each other by the millions over miniscule national differences. Have they ever wondered why these "minuscule" national difference are so important? Slight racial and ethnical differences make everything. It's the opposite of being "United" under jewish rule and by consommation habits.

I see America's power as the logical consequence of it's Germano-Nordic component. As they are more and more becoming ugly Euro-mutts (and even "White Nationalists" take 1/8th Indians or Armenians, or other jokes as Whites; just take a look at Stormfront.org), not to mention the millions of Nonwhites, America as an entity will decline soon or later.


"As the twenty-first century gets under way, the primacy of American power is one of the few undisputed truths of international affairs. The United States dominates the world militarily with 436 bases in North America and Europe, 186 in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, 14 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 7 in the Middle East, and 1 in South Asia, 647 altogether. It has bases or base rights in over forty countries around the world and a navy with an array of aircraft carrier task forces that dominate every ocean. The U.S. Air Force has a presence on six of the world's continents.

The United States has developed an unrivaled mastery of high technology weaponry that has radically redefined the meaning of modern warfare and includes a massive nuclear arsenal on hair trigger alert, capable of destroying any enemy completely and the world several times over. It has the military capability of fighting on several fronts simultaneously and is building a national missle defense system to protect the American mainland from sneak missle attack. It almost certainly will weaponize space within the next decade, giving the United States essentially complete military control over global communications."

"Yet what word but ''empire'' describes the awesome thing that America is becoming? It is the only nation that polices the world through five global military commands; maintains more than a million men and women at arms on four continents; deploys carrier battle groups on watch in every ocean; guarantees the survival of countries from Israel to South Korea; drives the wheels of global trade and commerce; and fills the hearts and minds of an entire planet with its dreams and desires."

I suppose you can say we have come a long way. North America orbits the world today like the Death Star in Star Wars. Bla, bla, ba... what does it mean? Since the beginning of the atomic bomb era, any war between world powers has been made impossible. Then, there was no more strategical need to multiply the nuclear arsenal...


That the american way of exxagerating everything: oversized cars, asses, etc. although it is not needed. (the Japanese and East Asians in general are smarter: they live in concentrated cities and all the income in spent (and reinvested) in high-tech products, high-tech transports in common, etc. That leads to better instead of just more.)

Racial purity and culture is the key of everything: if Japanese and Germans were as numerous as US citizens, their countries would be well ahead of the USA.

More generally, belonging to a "country" doesn't have any signification anymore. But Americans like simple things. They keep on believing to things like: "proud of this"... "proud of that"... "our great nation" :D ... "God gives us"... :D

There is no God, there is no Bless and there is no America... It's just an economical zone, not a nation, even in the traditionnal sense. The only ones to benefit finally from this concentration of power are Jews.

Dieter_
Monday, May 23rd, 2005, 07:15 PM
Racially aware Englishmen and Americans do exist.

I have said before that I feel more European than English. I must have a lot of Danish/German blood in me!