Is Gun Control a Nazi Scheme?

With gun owners increasingly aware of the Jewish leadership of the gun-banning movement, a group of Jews in Milwaukee claiming to be defenders of the Second Amendment have been noisily denouncing gun control as a "Nazi" scheme. The group, calling themselves Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, assert that Adolf Hitler was the father of all gun grabbers. The proof of this, they claim, was the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938, which was enacted by Germany's National Socialist government. They have succeeded in persuading at least one magazine read by firearms enthusiasts to publicize their claims repeatedly (Guns and Ammo, May 1993 and March 1994).

The truth of the matter is that the 1938 German law specifically provided for the ownership and carrying of firearms, including handguns, by law-abiding German citizens. Jews, of course, were not German citizens -- the National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms -- and the law specifically barred Jews from having any role in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition or from being firearms dealers (but not from purchasing or owning firearms).

The German law certainly was not an ideal one from the viewpoint of today's beleaguered American patriot, because it did have certain licensing requirements. A permit (Waffenerwerbschein) was required to buy a handgun (but not a long gun), and a separate license (Waffenschein), good for three years, was required to carry any firearm in public. Actually, the German law was less restrictive than most state and local laws in the United States were before the current campaign to nullify the Second Amendment shifted into high gear in 1993. More significantly, it ameliorated a law which had been enacted ten years earlier by a Left-Center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government headed by Wilhelm Marx and consisting of a coalition of Socialists and Catholic Centrists). The 1938 law irritated the Jews by pointedly excluding them from the firearms business, but it clearly was not a law aimed at preventing the ownership or use of firearms, including handguns, for either sporting or self-defense purposes by German citizens. As noted above, it actually relaxed or eliminated the provisions of a pre-existing law.

The facts, in brief, are these:

* The National Socialist government of Germany did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had.

* The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self-reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was alien to National Socialism.

* Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany five years before the National Socialists gained power. Five years after they gained power they got around to rewriting the gun law enacted by their predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; and the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years). They may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but they had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms.

The highlights of the 1938 German Weapons Law (which in its entirety fills 12 pages of the Reichsgesetzblatt with legalese), especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

* Handguns may be sold or purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle-loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement.

* Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.

* A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.

* Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years.

* Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.

* A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:

1. persons under the age of 18 years;

2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;

3. Gypsies or vagabonds;

4. persons under mandatory police supervision (i.e., on parole) or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;

5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;

6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation, were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.

* The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:

1. "trick" firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);

2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;

3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmarks); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations. (A full text and translation of these German gun laws is available from National Vanguard Books, PO Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA, for $14 postpaid.)

The requirements of "trustworthiness" and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists, these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, "I often carry sums of money," was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

It was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were denied the right to armed self-defense.

Despite these facts, there are a number of people among those who support Second Amendment rights who have fallen for the Jewish trick of associating gun-grabbing with Hitler and the National Socialists. These people sometimes make such statements as, "The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was round up all the guns." Such statements are demonstrably false, and when they are made by a person who genuinely supports Second Amendment rights they reveal the person's ignorance or dishonesty. When they are made by a Jewish group it is clear that their intent is to confuse the public and deceitfully deflect blame from their fellow Jews.

You found us out.  

You are now on "The List".

Goodbye.

Im not going to bother to research your statements, but if what you say is true, it looks like America is goose-stepping in the exact same path as pre-war Germany.

Just waiting for Kristallnacht now.

The anti-second amendment crowd has used misinformation to get what they want for years so I see nothing wrong with what the JPFO is doing.  All's fair in love and war.

Bradd

[url]http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm[/url]

[b]Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA '68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America. We began by probing the backgrounds of lawmakers who championed "gun control". We focused on those whose bills became part of GCA '68. GCA '68 as enacted closely tracks proposals dating to August 1963. We felt that if the culprit were a lawmaker -- or a congressional staffer -- he or she would know Germany, German law and possibly even speak German. He or she probably would have spent time in Germany on business or during military service. Alternatively, if the culprit were not a member of Congress or a staffer, there would be testimony at the hearings to that effect.

Most potential suspects were quickly eliminated; they had no apparent ties to Germany. But one lawmaker caught our attention.

An old "Who's Who" entry showed he had been a senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted German war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Thus, he had lived in Germany just after the Nazi period. His official duties required him to look at Nazi records, including Nazi laws. In 1963 he led the effort to greatly expand the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

We then got a break. We told a legal scholar of our findings. He was intrigued. He sent us an extract from the record of hearings held a few months prior to the enactment of GCA '68. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others.

U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) testified at these Senate hearings on "gun control". Senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD) chaired some of these hearings, in Dodd's absence.

Rep. Dingell expressed concern that if firearms registration were required, it might lead to confiscation of firearms, as had happened in Nazi Germany. Tydings angrily accused Rep. Dingell of using "scare tactics":

"Are you inferring that our system here, gun registration or licensing, would in any way be comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany, where they had a secret police, and a complete takeover?"

[/b]

The National Socialists of "88"'s, (you know who I mean), time, have been replaced by the "New World Order" socialists of today. (You need to catch up with the times)

You know, the ones who say the 2nd amendement is an individual right with "reasonable restrictions". A statement that "88" (Adolph Hitler), would have been quite comfortable with....

Gun control is power/freedom control, not exclusive to Nazis.

A little more....

[b](Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 26, 27 and 28 and July 8, 9 and 10. 1968, pp. 479-80, 505-6 cited as Subcommittee Hearings.)

Tydings later inserted into the hearing record various documents, "concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation."

Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter -- dated July 12, 1968 -- is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:


" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).


This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 -- 4 months before GCA '68 was enacted -- Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.

Why did Dodd own the original German text of any Nazi law? Why did he make known that he owned it?

The Library of Congress then had (and still has) the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' in its collection. The Library of Congress translator, Dr. Solyom-Fekete, could easily have used the Library of Congress' own copy.

Any member of Congress who wanted to read the Nazi Weapons Law need only have asked for it to be produced from the shelves of the Library of Congress and for it to be translated by Library of Congress experts. Why should any member of Congress ever have owned the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law?

Without access to Tom Dodd's personal papers, archived under his heirs' control, we unfortunately cannot offer definite answers.

Dodd could have acquired the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg. But he had no need to do so.

Dodd did not personally handle the prosecution of Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, who signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The case against Frick was presented by Robert M.W. Kempner, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States (see 'Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,' cited as TMWC, Vol. V, pp. 352-67, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947).

Nor should the Nazi Weapons Law otherwise have come to Dodd's attention. The Nazi Weapons Law was not used as evidence against Frick (see Kempner's speech, TMWC, V, pp. 352-67 and 'Index of Laws, Decrees, Orders, Directives, and the Administration of Justice in Nazi Germany and Nazi Dominated Countries', TMWC, Vol. XXIII, pp. 430-33). The Nazi Weapons Law is not listed among documents submitted as evidence to the Tribunal by the American prosecutors (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 98-169).

The prosecutors at Nuremberg doubtless knew of the Nazi Weapons Law. They probably saw it in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt.' On the same day that Nazi Interior Minister Frick signed the Weapons Law, March 18, 1938, he signed another law governing security measures in newly annexed Austria. This law concerning Austria appeared in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' -- directly in front of the Weapons Law -- and was introduced into evidence at Nuremberg ('Reichsgesetzblatt' 1938, I, p. 262; the Nazi Weapons Law was published in the same volume, p. 265; see TMWC, Vol. V, p.358 for reference to law concerning Austria).

Thus, the Nazi Weapons Law appeared to have no historical merit at Nuremberg and should not have attracted anyone's notice, certainly not to the extent of causing anyone to want to keep a copy of it as a separate document.

If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg, it likely was part of a collection of documents, for example, issues of the 'Reichsgesetzblatt'.

But if he acquired the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nuremberg, he must have done so for a very specific reason. The Nazi Weapons Law plainly did not figure at Nuremberg.

We may safely conclude it had little, if any, interest for those interested in the history of the Nazis' rise to power. For example, the Nazi Weapons Law is not mentioned at all in William L. Shirer's very thorough study of Nazi Germany, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950).

At the hearings held by Dodd's subcommittee at the end of June 1968, Rep. Dingell had objected to the firearms registration provision then being discussed. Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the Nazi law.

He may not have realized that he was revealing a broader truth; that the whole fabric of GCA '68 was based on the Nazi Weapons Law, even if the specific registration proposal was not so based.

Alternatively, Dodd may not have cared whether or not anyone knew that he had the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. He doubtless knew that months would pass before the hearing record was printed and so generally available for scrutiny. Thus, even if anyone then noticed the parallels between the two laws, the bill would already have become law.

Rep. Dingell does not appear to have pursued the matter: the firearms registration provision was not included in GCA '68. The Congress was stampeded on "gun control" by public enthusiasm. Martin Luther King had been murdered on April 4, 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy had been murdered on June 6, 1968.

We are not the first to have seen this hearing record. But we appear to be the first to have recognized its importance. This hearing record suggests strongly that the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) himself implanted the Nazi Weapons Law into American law, or, at very least, helped others to do so.

Now you know the ugly truth about the roots of GCA '68. But you need to see -- with your own eyes -- the hard evidence of the Nazi roots of "gun control" in America presented in "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny.

[/b]

(Edited to add)Hunter 88, if you too are a "Freedom loving American Patriot", you can join like-minded NO-Compromise patriots here;

[url]http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm[/url]

Have a nice day!!   [:D]  

Ya, I know,(thanks garand-man), but I figgered he'd get the message......  

I got a question for all you guys out there.

If the JPFO is just another group truley concerned with the rights of citizens to own firearms.
Then why do they stress the fact that they are Jews, why not just join the NRA and or some other non ethniclly designated group, to support gun owners?
Imagine the out cry these same jews would have if we started an Aryan's for firearms Ownership or something to the equivilent.
The jews ability to express racial pride and loyalty is great,But when another race tries to express pride AND loyalty to their own kind, the jews and their media bosses attack those other races with the utmost enthusiasm.
More specificly, whenever Whites try to encourage our own race to be loyal and proud of
our culture and want to increase our power and voice in the world, we are attacked by these same jews.

Just a thought gentelmen.
 

Beacuse they know how strongly the culture has embraced identity politics, and are using it to their (and our) advantage. It is extremely shrewd. Pink Pistols (gay pro-gun group) are doing the same.

It's all about using the Left's cultural weapons against them.

They stress the fact that they are jews, because of some folks perception that there is a jewish conspiracy to disarm the world, and take over. Jews DO seem to vote liberal, (read pro-gun control), and JPFO wants to demonstrate that not all jews are on board. (Just as the NWO is NOT an all jewish conspiracy) They don't join nra, because JPFO is a NO COMPROMISE organization....




This is especially true if you are sporting a swasticker as your "club" emblem....




It isn't only the jews who attack, so does everyone else, including whites.




Don't stop thinking, perhaps you'll "get it" eventually....

Next you're going to tell us that the holocaust was just a figment of our imaginations, and that it was a zionist disinformation plot to gain sympathy for the Jewish cause.

[x]

If the JPFO is a no compromise group for the benefit of all gun owners, then the stressing of the fact that they are jews, still does not add up, why not just call it something not racially descriptive?

And even if a pro white gun owners group did just come into being, and did not use the Swastika as it's emblem or logo, the jews would still attack it, and yes some very brainwashed whites would also.

Ok how bout this then, why not change the JPFO to the Multicultural Gun owners or something?
They could still be a no compromise group, and they would appeal to the broader masses, since as you say using left tactics against the leftist or whatever is their aim. It seems to me that multiculturism is far more fashionable and accepted than being jewish is.

In any society ruled by a tolatarian regime be it kings, dictators, or oligarcy....
The people have limited access to the means of self defense...(the elite fear not just the armed subject but the free spirit in that subject)

Problem is, Jews are smart,and can form these organizations, but "Aryans (sic) are usually illiterate morons, not able to tie their shoes without stretching their mental capacities.

Wouldn't you rather just gang up on somebody you find walking by themselves and beating them to death?  

Actually these are just the ones that Rosie and the like put on their talk shows.  You don't really think the media would give air time to a white seperatist that knew what he/she was takling about do you?  That would go against all that the libs are about.  I have spoken to many smart "88" types if you wish to call them that and even if you don't agree with them they can still be said to make a good arguement.

Sooo, you are trying to say that there are white separatists who[b]know what they are talking about??[/b]

So true.

The banning and taking of 'weapons' has been around a lot longer than firearms.

"jewish" is NOT a "race."

are muslims a race? what about animists?  

You don't have to be Jewish to join.

And, yes, gun control is a Nazi scheme, but the anti-gunners like to call us the Nazis.  Ironic, isn't it.

I'm trying to say that their are smart ones out there that can produce an arguement just like any other well educated pro/con whatever.  Whether it be abortion, taxes, gun control ,gay rights or whatever, you can't really throw the entire bunch into one basket and say that they are a group of morons.  They believe what they do and to them it is for a good reason.  Some of the group is going to be better at presenting that line of thought than others and the only ones that get to present the view of this subject matter are the ones who do not have the capacity do so properly.  This is indeed to the better interest of the media.

That's all.[:D]

Someone please explain to me why the white separatists hate the Jews so much.  Aren't they white?  Don't they come from the same part of the world?  Even Hitler didn't fit the Aryan profile...short, dark-haired, and mentally unstable.  I just never understood why jews are lumped in with blacks, hispanics, orientals, etc.

Bradd  

Germany has a very long history of hating the Jews.  I believe it started with the advent of the Luthern Church,

Sgtar15

I guess it just puzzles me because Jews seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.  They seem to have their sh*t together.  I wouldn't say that they are dragging society down.

Bradd

6 Hours later and this threads still running..

You sir are entitled to your own beliefs, but the first rule of a constructive debate is arming yourself with the facts. Arguing about JEWS or any other race is about as pointless as it gets. I am all in favor of EVERY JEW, HONKY, ASIAN, BLACK PERSON, FAG, ETC. of legally arming themselves, joining the NRA,GOA,JPFO,John Birch, etc, and getting involved for the betterment of the constitutional rights of all people.

Why don't you attempt something constructive(And Truthful) and focus on WHITE people fucking over other WHITE people first, I mean shouldn't true Aryans SET THE STANDARD? Why don't you concentrate on the majority of WHITE people who are CEO's, Congressman and Senators, or welfare sods, that fuck this country in the ass DAILY!

You make the baby Jesus cry buddy...

[x]

Yes jews are a race, they may claim diffrent when it suits their needs and then claim that they are when it suits their needs, this is well documented.

But all that aside, strange how we Nazi's are targeted as freedom haters and enslavers, i have never even suggested that someone be kicked off, or even complained about an intelligent argument, hell i normally don't even respond to the blatant insults directed at me personally, but  i just ask some very valid questions, and persue my own thoughts to the end, and all the real haters and anti- free speech mongers come out of the wood pile.

Also, being an Aryan is about more than being blue eyed and blond haired, those are just most of the Nordic Aryans, i myself have brown eyes and brown hair.
I even have good friends that are not exactlly pale either , they are still white, meaning that their blood is 100% european, just like mine.

And i would never even consider being a member of a movement that based it's ranks on the amount of mellenonin[sic] in the body of it's pupils.
Being an Aryan  first is being European by blood not by birth, and more importantly it's about securing an enviroment that our race can develope, physiclly, spiritually and biologiclly.
We want to live with our own, in a land that we can call our own without being forced to accept non-whites, so that we can continue to finish natures task of evolution, to bring about the super man, not that we are the super man but to cross the gap between animal and superman.

I'm not a white supremist and neither is any true Aryan, we leave it up to nature to decide, through natural selection, who is supreme and who should strive to be.

You people have some very strange ideas about what We are and what we are not. Like i have said before if you people would actually take the time and read books like Mein Kamp and White Power and Which Way Western man, not to forget The Lighting and The Sun, all of which are available from National Vanguard Books, you will all have true understanding of our goals and beliefs.

I have read the Bible, and the Talmud, and all the conservative garb also, so i'm qualified to question you. But none of you have ever even met someone like me, let alone sat down and talk to one of us, so you are unqualified to judge me at all.

Try and stay away from the TV for a year or two, get out in society and read some books that i suggest to you, then come and insult my motives and beliefs.

IF you all can't be scrutinized for what you believe without getting very hostile then you are hiding something, if you have  questions about what Real Neo-Nazi's are like then ask me something you would like to know.

And anyway my last question about the JPFO was never answered, which proves my theory about them. Instead of answering the question they resort to insults to distract us from the issue, very typical of their tribe indeed.

As you know, the jews in Germany and the occupied territories did, for the most part, not resist when they were loaded on the cattle cars for the trips to the camps. A major exception was the Warsaw ghetto uprising. JPFO, I believe, would rather associate themselves with the latter group. I also explained in my above post other reasons. Please do not ask the same question over & over, I get tired of responding.



Ahhh, but they are not attacking because they are jews. They are attacking because they are ignorant, and yes, brainwashed by the World socialist movement who controls the education system in our nation.



Why?? Their whole point is that not all jews are anti-gun. They are in opposition to jewish liberals. That's the point!



Explained above, also the nra, (a compromise group), already does that.



True all over, although not necessarily right.

Oh yeah and like any other movement that goes against the mainstream of society and has it's own set of morals and goals, we do attract a certain amount of true white trash, phycopaths and other rejects that can't exist in society do to some mental or physical defects, but unlike most movements we strive to outcast these freaks from our ranks, and to have nothing to do with them.
Unfortunetly the media has an uncanny ability to sniff these freaks out, and give Them the media coverage by which all the broad masses base their opinion of us on. This is sad indeed and i think that most of you have beeen duped by this tactic, i do regret that.
But here is your chance to actually learn something, from the source sort of speak.
I can't speak for all self proclaimed Neo Nazi's, but i can speak for the ones that have a true understanding of what it is we must do, and what we truely believe in, atleast from the ones i know personally. Which is quite numerous, i'm not some stupid sister humping red neck that hates Niggers just because I hate Niggers or some baseless and empty hatred for other races that is both pointless and unconstructive.
i actually hate only those members of other races and my own race that  literally have the blood of my people on their hands.

i do hate to have to go on like this, but this board like any other does strive to be both educational and entertaining, not to mention informative, and i can not help with that goal if you all have some very Wrong impressions about myself and our allies.

So you admit you are a socialist??



Ask away...



ya, I know...



Ya mean like Hayden lake??




So start a commune or a space program...



A socialist humanist eh?? You really should consider giving up your antiquated ideas, and get together with the NWO crowd.




Been there done that. It's part of my "know the enemy" strategy.



So instead of citing this 'n that, tell us about it.



Seems you make a lot of generalizations, just like those who you are critical of...



It has now....



Didn't see your "theory about them", but I'd LOVE to hear it!



Who's "they"? What "tribe"? No one here is a spoksman for JPFO, nor has claimed to be. Are you saying the jewish worldwide conspiracy knows about your post here and is ignoring it?? Could it be they just have more important things ,(like taking over the world), to do???

NEXT PLEASE!!!!

Our own land means our ancestrial lands such as all of Europe for one example, this land is ours by birth and by blood.

When you think of China a picture of chinese people come to mind and when you think of Israel, jews come to mind and when you think of Japan Japanese come to mind, and the same for Africa and so forth.

But when whites have tried to re-establish rule in our lands and expell those that would take that rule away, oh then all that goes out the window and in come the equalitarians preaching equality and tolerence, but for every other race wanting to make Their culture the only dominant culture in Their land, then it is looked upon as Nobel and healthy, and i for one agree with this.
I'm not saying that diffrent races can't work together on a global scale, but if a people want their ancestrial lands back in their control and want a government that protects the race with the utmost dedication they should be allowed to have it then, and given this choice most would choose to do it.
In Germany for example THE PEOPLE Elected Hitler as the chancellor because he told them outright what he believed and wanted to do, he told them this in Mien Kamp, and on the streets with flyers and marches, and the german people agreed with this, and so did several other races, such as the Japanese and a large group of Indians and Turks for that matter.
National Socialism was not just an Aryan belief but a universal one, that the best and brightest of all races could see the undying Natural truths in.

In no civilization can more than one culture be dominant or co-exist with peace. There will always be killing for one or the other, especially when Gods start coming in to the equation. This has been proven, time and time again throughout history, with the fall of all the great civilizations, all accepted multiculturalism and homosexuallity and race mixing within a couple of decades or centuries before the down fall of the society, EveryOne.

We white racialist want a clean and healthy and non-white free land to to live and grow and propagate with our own, without being Forced at gun point to accept other races, we have tried it in the past, in Nazi Germany being the most recent attempt, but we always under estimate the power of the controll of the masses the enemies of all things natural and healthy have over the popultion of other nations. It won't happen again.
And in a society where the government supports the racial culture of only one race most races will leave on their own without being booted out, no violence is normally required except for those that are directly trying to destroy the rightfull racial culture of the land.
We are not talking about world domination just re-claiming of our ancetrial lands that WE built and We conquered.
I feel that all races can co-exist on this planet if we all had our own Home land that we could really call ours, Racially and politiclly and culturally.
I'm sure wars would still break out from time to time for some reason or another but on the whole the
planet would be at relative peace for most of the time.

I have never claimed to be a college grade or grammer expert, and i must admitt my spelling and puntuation is needing of improvement. I'm just a working man with very strong beliefs thats all, but i do notice others with grammatical errors but as long i understand what they are trying to say i just let it go, i try to stay on the issue at hand not pick at minor details such as spelling.
So if a people of a land decide to rid the land of aliens, and they do this with their power of election, using their FREEDOM to vote, then they should be Forced to accept whomever the Equalitarians say they should?
And then the people in order to defend the Liberty of their newly cleansed land, they should be bombed into submission by the Democracy Mongers of the world?
No sir you have a strange Idea of Freedom and Liberty. It seems that you feel that unless a race is willing to accept it's own death by being forced to mix with others, they are evil and hatefull.
And you are trying to tell me that by securing the Racial make up of it's own People, they have committed some crime and should be punished?
So then all the great men in histroy that have warned of the dangers of breeding with other races ie. George Washington, Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, Adolf Hitler, George lincoln Rockwell, Jack London, And all the founding fathers of this country meaning the ones that actually fought the Revolutionary war and signed the Constitution, not to mention Abraham Lincoln, that publicly oppossed the mixing of races, and clearly did not see non-wites as equals, as he stated numerous times, were some how wrong?
Intresting indeed.

I always remember the party I was at when some do-good lady came after me re amendment 2 and my NRA  membership. Her reasoning was this:

NRA>Militia>Klan,White Power>Anti black,Anti Semetic. In short she was calling me a damned bigot.

Whipped out the JPFO membership card, and she turned on the waterworks. Told her that she ought to dial 911 when the JBTs showed up,and that gov'ts gone bad have killed more little kids than criminals ever had. R.Lee Ermey would have been proud of that chewing I dished out.

I wrote Aaron Zelman a letter once when I joined stating that I was Irish, and that I had a hard time seeing the difference between being Irish and Jewish. Last time I checked, all the Jews I knew seemed to put their pants on one leg at a time.

It's been my 'barometer' of history that the Jews seem to be the groups that is  often first to be targeted by gov'ts that are going bad.

While it's true that many Jews are liberal as hell, JPFO makes a point that not all of them are. If I'm not mistaken, JPFO was created because of some shortwave radio programs that were stating ALL Jews are liberals, etc.

I get pretty tired of people bad-mouthing each other over such shit as race/religion/ etc.
Quite frankly, this is just what the heavies want; keeping us split up and fighting among each other.

I really don't care if I get 2nd amendment help from a group of Gay, Black,Jewish, Female, Native-American disabled War Veterans with a penchant for pink panties. Help is help. And we sure need it.

Listen, most of us have a lot more in common with some black/Oriental/Jewish/Whatever guy that's trying to make a living and raise a couple halfway decent kids than we do with some fat cat types like Ted Kennedy, Donald Trump,or Bill Gates or some other person like that.

JPFO is damned careful about what they print. Ain't none of this 'Joe's pal's cousin's buddy said...' on the JPFO papers. It's first class irrefutable materiel that they put out.

The research JPFO does is out of this world. These are the guys that make some of the best pro-2nd Amendment arguements I have heard yet!


As for the GCA of '68, yes, it parallels the Nazi GCA that took place in the 30s in Germany.

I like JPFO, and my attitude toward Jews entering the fray on our side is this: Welcome aboard, and let's watch each other's flanks.

If anyone out there feels like flaming me, fire away. The mistletoe attached to my shirt tail is treated with asbestos.

Then go take it back...



Bullshit, that's zimbabwe...




Yep, and the majority handed them their heads on a plate. If the Germans had stayed put, there probably wouldn't have been a problem. Fortunatly the rest of the world did not think of them as a "super race".




You really should look at the NWO. They believe as you do, and are further along in the scheme..





You are right there, and this is a problem in America today. However, "culture" does not by nesessecity mean "race". For example our American culture is based on the principles of it's founding. Our problems can be traced to our departure from them, and from G*d.



You had it in Germany, but attacked other sovereigns, not to mention cutting deals with that wonderful humanist Stalin...



So, go get 'em. Emigration to Europe is fairly easy...




You mean peace after you impose YOUR will. You're no better than those I already oppose.You sure don't know human nature do you...

So hunter, I've asked you a couple of questions.
Are you a humanist?
Are you a socialist?

I never said anywhere that i would impose my will on anybody, you said that not me.
I'm saying that if a majority of any race decides to take back it's ancestrial lands, and to establish a ruling party that wants only what is good for that race in that land,  they should be allowed to do it.
You on the other hand want people like me to have no voice and no choice in the destiny of my race.
the nwo is nothing like me i despise them completely they want all races to mix and co-exist in a slave world where only the rich businessmen and money swindlers have any say in anything. They want a world that is governed by economics not by what is healthy for the race.

No the NWO and I have nothing in common, you have more in common with them than i do, you would bomb and kill any race that does not accept democracy and racial equality as the word of god or whatever.

If i were to buy some un inhabitted island tommorrow, and only allow whites to be there, you would scream for my blood, and start spouting off about brotherly love and all that garbage. Now wouldn't you?

And you say i want to rule the world, how absurd! And you say that I want to dictate the lives of others.

I'm a White Racialist, i want what is healthy and good for my people, without trying to rule others that is what i am.

Once again i have never claimed tobe asuper man or a super race, you said that not me.

i said that we should try and close the gap between animal and super man, meaning we should encourage our own racial evolution, like all of natures animals do, by breeding with their kind and encouraging the strong and smart to breed more thats all.
Also an Equalitarian is someone that believes in the unquestionable equality of all humans be they retarded or homosexuall or of another race.
They believe in the insane notion that enviroment is the sole cause for intelligence and creativity or lack there of.

Instead of saying that blacks make better sports players because their physical make up is better adapted to that arena they say that it is  because they are forced to do that because whites keep them down or whatever.

My people meaning White People, those of all European Decent, regardless of geographical location