28 December 2002 – Eric Thomson (c1228et.htm)
During the Holohoax trials, I requested, over and over, the dimensions of a standard two-axle European boxcar. I was finally able to obtain the dimensions from one on exhibit in Yakima: 8' x 20' (outside dimensions). On French railroads, this boxcar was a "40 or 8" (40 infantrymen or 8 horses). In World War II, however, 250 Jews and their baggage could "somehow" be made to fit! During World War II, two of these dinky toy cars would fit into a standard North American boxcar. I was told by a German engine driver that one standard European steam locomotive could pull a maximum of 50 such two-axle boxcars, when loaded, not more. From my railroad experience, I opined that the couplings were too weak and the sidings too short. The German railroad man agreed and added that World War II European locomotives were half the weight of North American steam locomotives, even though the rail gauge was the same, i.e. standard gauge. An American steam locomotive could pull 100 loaded boxcars, but not in Europe! It took me ten years to obtain information not much rarer than the number of legs on a horse! That's why I call it the blightwing.

I emphasize that my work of informing the masses is not to wake them up, but to wake up the barely one out of twenty who are potential leaders and people with initiative. If I must reach out to millions, just to find one worthy collaborator, so be it. The Internet makes it a cost-effective bargain. We must reach the many, to gain the few.

Many thanks for the book on German economic recovery (1932-1938). Although it purports to be economics, rather than propaganda, the author's bias is plain, as it 'must' be to get it published. Omitted were many 'dogs that did not bark in the night', as Sherlock Holmes noted. One was that of British imperialism's unrelenting desire to keep Germany down by all means. Another was the incomplete comparison between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Stalin was arming to the teeth, with lots of financial help from FDR's America. In March 1933, Samuel Untermeyer of The World Jewish Congress declared war on Germany, which resulted in an immediate boycott of German goods. Jew banksters followed suit and Germany countered with The Transfer Agreement, in which departing jews could take their loot out of Germany in the form of goods, which they could redeem in foreign currency by selling the goods. That's how the Reichmans made their fortune in Tangier, as I read. The other counter-ploy was Germany's barter trade with other countries. In one deal, locomotives were bartered for Brazilian coffee. Trade without cash or credit drove the sheenies into severe fits of heebie-jeebies.

According to Col. Dahl (who I met in 1976) and Prof. App, FDR (Col. Dahl's father-in-law) was envious of Hitler's success in creating full employment by 1935 in a resource-poor, war-ravaged land the size of Texas. Roosevelt could not pull the U.S. out of its depression without war, as the banksters desired. FDR's peacetime Keynesian 'pump-priming' was insufficient, and based on Federal Reserve money which greatly increased the U.S. debt. The U.S.A. had an economic downturn in 1937, the year FDR ordered the coffins for his planned war against Germany.

National Socialist economic policy was a work in progress, as the book's author observes. Step One was to achieve full employment, between 1933 and 1938, after Hitler's election. This was achieved, along with major economic recovery in agriculture and industry. As the author, R.J. Overy, admits, rearmament was not the basis of German economic recovery, as it was in the case of FDR's America. The author's mind is boggled by setting national interests above personal profit, and subjecting economic volatility to controls in the national interest, on behalf of long-term plans. You mention National Socialism's tolerance for monopolies. This was necessary at the time, but it reflects the idea of subordinating all economic activity to the interests of the entire German people, rather than a single group, as the author noted.

In his "Secret Book", Adolf Hitler saw that the Germans could not feed themselves within the restricted boundaries of Weimar Germany, and he expressed his firm intention of taking farmland from the Soviet Union, to avoid war with Britain caused by trade rivalry. That's why Nazi Germany was rearming, but Overy admits that German forces were small and designed to fight short blitzkrieg campaigns. Fieldmarshall Guderian admitted that Germany fought in 1939 and 1940 "on a shoestring." The author rightly points out the inefficiencies of labor-intensive production. That was a holdover from rapid full-employment, and would have evolved, had Germany been able to avoid war with Poland in 1939. Bulldozers were unknown, for example, and earth was moved using light field railways, with hand-pushed dumpcars and many men with shovels, although the Germans could have produced bulldozers quite easily, had there been time and resources.

ORION!

P.S.: As I reread this letter, I noted some major omissions in regard to the "science" of economics, which adheres to the description of the craft in The Protocols of Zion: Bullshit baffles brains. After the metamorphosis of the Soviet Jewnion, economists were given official statistics from Soviet archives in regard to production, assets, liabilities, &c. Their conclusion was that none of these statistics addressed the realities they purported to represent. Even the radiation figures from the Chernobyl Disaster were fudged and useless. I have found similar lies and inconsistencies in sheenie statistics of the Western countries. After all, the hebes control our economies, so their stats are unlikely to be much more accurate than those of the former USSR.

I note the author's use of comparative growth statistics between kosher economies such as Britain's and Nazi Germany. "Growth" is a favorite field for jew-jitsu, of the sort performed by Arthur Anderson et al. in the Enron scandal. From my sources who lived before, during and after the Third Reich, the general living standard had improved greatly from the Weimar era. Some said it was still better than Weimar, even during the war! These were usually farming people whose farms were not subject to seizure by sheenie loan sharks, as in Weimar times. As one kike said, "Weimar times were great for the Jews", to which I replied, "and Hell for the Germans." The suicide rate for young people in Weimar Germany was atrocious and it dropped to nearly zero in 1935, shortly after Hitler took over.

Do wages serve to indicate the real standard of living? When our author writes about 'real' wages, he is lying. If a worker receives 'low' cash wages, but also receives subsidized housing, furniture, health care, child care and paid vacations on brand new ocean liners, the U.S. tax authorities would assess the value of those items, along with the workers' wages. Our author does not, although he mentions those worker perks.

One would also wonder how Germany could prosper by divesting themselves of their jew 'geniuses' who managed the Weimar economy so 'well'. How could Germany survive without its jew loansharks and swindlers, as well as the jew bolshevik sociopaths? Even to say, however timidly, that Germany could enjoy economic recovery without their essential sheenies is sufficient to have the author labeled a "Nazi" himself.

Liars figure all the time, and Enron et al. is not the first such divergence of figures from facts. As a graduate student of International Relations, I attended seminars on Problems of Development in the Turd World. One participant mentioned the 'progress' achieved by IMF intervention in the Venezuelan economy. According to him, "average per capita income had risen." I retorted by citing figures to show that one third of the population were not even in the cash economy, another set of sheenie stats from U.S. sources. I pointed out that "average per capita income" is meaningless. Median per capita income is relevant to defining actual improvement, excluding inflation. If, for example, we have 100 people living on a desert island, one of whom has $100 and the remaining 99 having zero, the average would be $1 per capita. This is irrelevant, for the median would be zero. Every banana republic can use the average to hide extremes of wealth and poverty, as we do in North America.

"Growth" figures are typically fudged by our sheenie statisticians, for propaganda purposes, just as occurred in the Soviet Jewnion. If we have our desert island with 100 people and $100, A can pay B $100 for picking coconuts; B can pay C $100 for catching fish, &c. No matter how many such transactions occur, our island economy still amounts to $100, but a kosher number-cruncher could add up all the transactions and claim that the economy has 'grown'. This is how banks work, for the actual amount of currency is multiplied statistically in the form of deposits, which are lent out to borrowers. Add to this factor compound  interest, and our economy heads into La La Land Enronia under the Wizard of 0z. Inflation usually denied, but it is also a normal function of a bankster economy with sheenie business practices on behalf of the middlemen. Having known factory workers, farmers and builders, I know how little the product costs, that is, what the producers receive from the middlemen, and how much they cost the consumer. When shoes were made in U.S.A., I was informed that they cost 50 cents a pair to make, but, by the time they arrived in their boxes on the store shelves, they cost $20. In other words, the shipping, wrapping and stacking on the shelves was $19.50, but the finished product was only 50 cents! A major brand of vacuum cleaner cost about $50 to produce, but the consumer paid $500+ for the item. Cars and houses are cheaper to make than ever before and their prices are higher than ever before, in 'real' terms, that is, how many hours must one work to pay for such items now, as one did in the past? If I obtain such things with fewer hours of work, then my real wage has risen, regardless of monetary figures.

In a comical aside when I was living there, one dumb Goy told me he was going to South Africa, where he could double his income compared to his Rhodesian earnings. I said, "that's because the Rhodesian dollar is worth two Rand!" Greenspan says we have no inflation. I don't know where he shops!

DOWZ!