Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all, if parallels are drawn and modern day comparison accepted. He just saw things a little differently that's all, no worse and no more diverse, if the results of today's leaders behaviour are seen for what they really are.

I have to mention the Jew thing other wise pr will cremate me, with good reason. There is too much blame placed upon the Jew as too much blame is/was placed upon Hitler. A Pro Hitler message is too often disregarded out of hand because of the Holocaust story, which allows the same ideology to infect present thinking while under the guise of right wing willingness to repeat history.

In both cases each leaders of regimes acted or act as part of a collective push to establish rule and to gain economic benifit. And to further shatter any similarities drawn, between the Nazi idea that Jews were the cause of the rift, Israel's population is currently not a great deal bigger than the tourists who visit India annually for a vacation.

India doesn't claim to suffer a invasion or take over as migratory grockles infest ashrams and take snap photo's so please don't think that a piss weak isolated colonial nation parked within the Middle East wishes to rule the world, as some round here are repeatedly suggesting.

Such a notion is brainless, maybe the link is not to rule but to offer strategic assistance and tender administration consultancy services as general managers in the region where we Anglo's need a hands on body count in the continued conflict .

In these parallels, between current coalition behaviour and third Reich aspirations our willing leaders steal assets from brown people, there is the third reich link. like any ancient leaders with colonial ambition.

Muslims or those who inhabit weaker nations are the current targets of our race, we intend to gain control of the world, establish a United Nation of right thinking Anglo White Nations to head up a G1 forum, eventually as the G8 is whittled down one by one until the essence of the Clone is extracted, managed maintained and protected.

Brown people who are to be exploited, cheap labour, and their health is to be ruined, no health care, none of this is our concern, we give them no respect now, so why should our benevolence in globalisation terms change our behaiviour?

Who's heard of Timor recently? You remember the youngest nation of democratisation, blah, blah, bling, just one victim in many. Our nation still thinks we did them a good turn which just shows you how we are treated by our media.

We poison lands in the third world nations with industrial/mining tailings, pollute their rivers and dump toxins into their environment, not in Timor yet but in PNG or Europe Africa and Asia, we really don't care where the toxic waste kills, just not in America's back yard, the Mantra reads quite clearly, not anywhere where there is a EPA with the Authority.

Here in this colonial nation of ours, acid leaching and high pressure water mining flushes the uranium from beneath our deserts using the nation's water reserves and ruining the environment for ever. But we have no voice heard over our masters wish to please the Mother country.

There is no hope for the Murray, its will become the polluted inland sea, and somewhere on its banks an Esmeralda arsenic mercury gold mining operation that threatens to turn it into the Danube of the southern hemisphere.

There really is no reason to believe old growth forests will survive the next decade any where in this wide brown land, we stuffed it , squeazed every dollar out of it but forgot to leave it, perhaps we will as future enviromental refuges..

I'm not speaking of Grandmothers here, its motherland, you missed the generation shift. Sometime ago, old country grandmother handed over the reins to her daughter America, and a new Fatherland was born, post ww2.

We know who wears the trousers in this household , just because we cannot use the male term, because of the Hitler hate campaign the terms of reference are clearly unchanged, over free trade agreements, don't we Love the American way?, so the parallels knit together quite nicely.

There are so many ways we Anglos stamp misery upon the world, for consumerist sake.

Our rich fatty diet here in Australia is supplemented with Palm oil which finds its way from Indonesia Cambodia Vietnam and Thailand into most supermarket convenience foods. The food industry reliance upon Palm Oil means a rainforest or two are clear felled daily as a monoculture replaces nature, which means Mudslides during the Monsoons. Brown People die. And White people have a obesity epidemic.

Our first world diet needs to control all types of oils otherwise consumerism fail, but its all quiet on the oil subject in Iraq, isn't it? as it gets shipped out and taken in its crude form and is geosequestered back underground state side to replenish exhausted stocks, while Iraqis die.

The results of globalisation will spread the message that western ways are better at killing non white nations, unless they submit to Anglo way. Please read Anglo/Arian in this parallel.

We get the term Anglo from a French definition that describes the mixed blood of German and Saxon stock after the migration of Germanic tribes in 800 bc, I know its ancient history but it's a good Arian tie in for this article, I'm pleased.

Anglo Saxon can during this age of semantics' fit any creed or race that aspires to emulate the behaviour of the nation of origin, a full blood African can be an Englishman if born into the nation, he must believe British ways and speak with a British accent and has no other values than those of his citizenship, then he is Anglo, who cares about skin. For any definition describing race you cannot be sure of definition unless the context is mentioned, declaring Jews Semitics for example indicates that the terms are corruptible, one must accept that the terms to describe a race are changeable and can be used to describe a religious cult like Jews, because amongst them are Ethiopians. In truth Semitic could not describe a Jew only Palestinians or those indigenous to the region. Jews mostly come from Europe, so how on earth Jews gain the title Semitic can only be explained only because its not worth the argument

HITLER is remembered for the things that went wrong with the big plan, if given a go, and left alone, he would have created a perfect world, the kind GWB and his followers now strive to achieve.


I'm sure, the idea has crossed your minds, by now after 60 years of that type of new world order, had Hitler been successful we would be in a better position by now, we would have advanced as a nation, under German high command instead of flapping around acting on America's behalf.

Under the German empire, we would have order, respected leaders, better beer than America offers and trains that run on time, we would have strong links with employer federations not these union squabbles. Under a Hitler style of political dictatorship we could have everything and more, we missed out then, but now we have a chance to reclaim the title under a different heading

Here's a list I found while surfing all I did was change the spelling, it's a bit dated but I kind of support the message.

1. Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political manoeuvring in order to gain office.

2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophes.

3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless ultra-nationalist foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate.

4. Like Hitler, Bush has accordingly improved his popularity ratings, especially with veterans and conservative Republicans, by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany's military build-up, Bush uses Al Qeader and the Axis of Evil to justify our current military build-up.

5. Like Hitler, Bush promotes militarism while in the midst of a major economic recession (or depression). He uses war preparations to help subsidize defence industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis.

6. Like Hitler, Bush glorifies patriotism to stir up public support. He treats our nation's unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God.

7. Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he makes generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the case of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City.

8. Like Hitler, Bush envisages a future world order that guarantees his own nation's hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations). He is willing to break the U.N. Charter in promoting this end.

9. Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.

10. Like Hitler, Bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a "coalition of the willing," to give the impression of having a broad popular alliance. These include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini's Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II.

11. Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. Today, Bush depends on a "defence" budget roughly equivalent to the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world.

12. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to invade other nations despite the opposition of the U.N. (League of Nations). He also has no qualms about bribing, bullying and insulting its members, even tapping their telephone lines.

13. Like Hitler, Bush pursues war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. He actually seeks to reduce taxes while conducting an expensive invasion and occupation of an "undesirable" nation.

14. Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939, Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as a "potential" threat to our national security.

15. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed, with many thousands of casualties anticipated in Iraq, especially since the city of Baghdad--with a population of between 5 and 6 million--will be a primary target.

16. Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a "shock and awe" blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armour columns.

17. Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty, as indicated by his unique record as a governor of Texas who was reluctant to commute death sentences.

18. Like Hitler Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qeader quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea as a potential third front. Much the same thing happened when Hitler expanded German military operations from Spain to Poland and France then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941.

19. Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing "regime change" by installing Quisling-style client governments reinforced by full-scale military occupation under a military governor.

20. Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties and depends on detention centres (i.e. concentration camps) such as Guantanamo Bay.

21. Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argue, for example that every measure has been taken to avoid war (hardly true), that an invasion of Iraq will diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat to the world, and that the U.S. is staging an invasion because the risks of inaction would be greater (not less). All of this is highly debatable. They likewise argue that Iraq is linked with Al Qeader (which has only recently become true and that nothing whatsoever has been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. war plans (which simply isn't true).

22. Like Hitler, Bush incessantly finds new excuses to justify war—from Iraq's WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qeader connection, to the creation of democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for war is challenged, Bush shifts to another, but only to shift back again at another time.

23. Like Hitler Bush and his cohorts exaggerate ruthlessness by their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the Bush team justifies a full-scale invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity that were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S., supplied with both advisors and materiel (poison gas included) by our own government.

24. Like Hitler, Bush's Messianic ambition to bring about America's hegemonic dominance in the world makes him perhaps the most dangerous President in our nation's history, a rogue chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars.

25. Like Hitler, Bush has become so obsessed with his vision of a Manichaean conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (the anti-patriotic "other") that for many in contact with the White House he is beginning to seem as if he has lost touch with reality.

26. Like Hitler, Bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his elitist education at Andover, Yale and Harvard.

27. Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues evolutionary theory, in Hitler's case by treating the Aryan race as being superior, in Bush's case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.