XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, uk.politics.misc, uk.legal   
   XPost: alt.politics.uk   
   From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
   Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,   
   on December 10, 1940:   
      
   "In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which   
   means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must   
   possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their   
   wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people   
   themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their   
   convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The   
   decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In   
   those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing   
   more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,   
   as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are   
   more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'   
   By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an   
   uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to   
   make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national   
   control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital   
   and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak   
   of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of   
   the 'freedom of the press.'   
      
   In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every   
   case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the   
   editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor   
   tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next   
   day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless   
   slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus   
   mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.   
   The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in   
   Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always   
   one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that   
   families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a   
   liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three   
   sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common   
   attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected   
   people' actually form a community which operates and controls all   
   these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is   
   really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the   
   opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in   
   agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the   
   medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One   
   might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the   
   people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the   
   contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the   
   masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich   
   Britain.'   
      
   She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a   
   hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living   
   must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England   
   itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!   
   In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is   
   poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible   
   wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The   
   workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the   
   globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the   
   masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to   
   have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions   
   of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,   
   and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole   
   world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish   
   unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a   
   half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year   
   after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my   
   fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?   
   It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such   
   are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters   
   is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the   
   factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The   
   masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are   
   interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times   
   - only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,   
   the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.   
      
   To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous   
   to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a   
   member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:   
   'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?   
   It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business   
   concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished   
   all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of   
   Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from   
   accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case   
   in other countries.   
      
   They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I   
   can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very   
   well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is   
   another matter.   
      
   The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible   
   in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in   
   return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train   
   once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.   
   On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory   
   that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some   
   astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his   
   brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something   
   and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible   
   for idle drones to inhabit this country.   
      
   I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that   
   two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite   
   right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National   
   Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to   
   my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and   
   cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the   
   ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our   
   problems.   
      
   To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)