Dear Mr. C.W:
I have two old friends whom I grew up with. Both were in German POW camps. Both said that they were treated very well considering the war time conditions. I am sure stories like this are very common but you'll never see TV or Hollywood informing you of that. All they present is fat, rich and blubbering jews who tell you how they just narrowly escaped being gassed by the devil. A cousin, who was under direct personal orders from Gen. Patton, always related how the Germans did their best to live up to the Geneva Convention -- something no other party to that war did. As an additional note -- the connection between smoking and lung cancer was established in 1936 by the German National Socialist regime as well as the health (heart and circulatory system) dangers resulting from eating hydrogenated fats such as margarine.

Let me preface this hate filled opinion with a bit of hate concerning the scientific crowd who hates those who hate science. Scientists, like pianists, are essentially free loaders. They produce no apples or potatoes, like the farmers nor shoes and such, as does the cobbler. If they all dropped dead, life would go on. Without potatoes, life wouldn't. Where does da scientists gets their boodle? Many are doing their research thing via public grants and one thing all of them have in common, is to make sure that those grants not only keep coming, but are increased as well. So they go to Congress, which doesn't know a checkerboard from a gnat's ass, and spout wishful thinking mumbo jumbo while at the same time waving their diplomas. One of the things no scientist ever does, is to say he's making no progress or has reached a dead end. They are always "improving" and success is just around the gas oven corner providing they can secure a little more time and a great deal more in funds.

The internal combustion engine has to be phased out. That's the commandment, but it didn't come from Charlton Heston.

A fuel cell is a cell which uses fuel -- not something which is used as fuel. Whatever this cell is, it uses fuel. That's why they call it a fuel cell. Did you expect Howard Stern already? Inside one of these magic boxes is the latest -- and improving, of course -- fuel cell technology, the description of which is quite technical. I am not in the habit of getting technical about technical things. Anyway, the p.c. job the boys are working on is the burning of hydrogen to directly produce electricity. "It will be damned near 100 percent efficient," says Dr. Harry Balz and dittoed by Prof. Iva Biggun. Heaven is just around the corner and while we are all dying of cancer and being mugged, at least driving to the abortion garage will be more efficient and none of that warming carbon dioxide will be around to melt Antarctica thus causing another Biblical flood. I wonder about these things. Hate seems to prod the mind into states of questioning, wondering and pondering.

OK, Kay, we have our magical fuel cell -- saving energy by the death camp train load. Where does the hydrogen fuel come from and how will we carry it about in our necessary 666 pound vehicle? If it's gaseous, would the car behave like a hot air balloon and rise like the Hindenburg? Liquid is out of the question unless your bus is equipped with a very, very expensive tank like they have in space rockets. They complained that steam cars were not safe due to the danger of a boiler blowing up. In one high school science class, we demonstrated molecular size by filling balloons (today they'd use condoms) up with air, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. By next class time, the hydrogen balloon was collapsed since the tiny molecules penetrated the microscopic pores of the balloon. The air balloon was much softer and good ol' carbon dioxide was still in a state of erection. Maybe the hydrogen will be stored in some newly developed hydrogen sponge. Let's suppose that technology also solved that problem. That still leaves us with "Where does the hydrogen come from?" It do come from de water 'n' de ocean am filled with it. Problem. The hydrogen has to be separated from the oxygen. That takes energy -- electrical energy -- and electrical energy always comes from other forms of energy like falling water and big internal combustion engines which go titty titty bang bang in the night.

Pound for pound, gasoline is 35 times more energy producing than hydrogen as a result of combustion. (Consult any handbook of chemistry and physics.) If we assume that the gasoline engine is only 25 percent efficient in the mechanical energy area, that still makes gasoline 9 times better. Also, in your fuel cell Ford, what's going to supply the passenger heat for the folks driving about in Dakota in January? Didja ever think about that? Electrical heating for the passengers, defrosters and the like, perhaps? Electricity must be transformed BACK into heat for those purposes and at today's prices, electricity is still 3 times more expensive than burning fuel, fossil fuels and fuelish old fossils.

In the middle of go nowhere, the hydrogen fuel cell, utilizes the oxygen of the air for its own sinister purposes thus DEPRIVING animal life of necessary oxygen JUST AS the internal combustion does. At least the internal engine tosses back into the environment the much needed, by plants, carbon dioxide and plants, if you recall, do us a gigantic favor by giving back oxygen. All animal life burns carbon/ hydrogen substances pretty much the same way as any burning does -- including Cyrus Clam's BMW. The fuel cell concept is thus anti-nature while its proponents declare just the opposite. There is nothing horrible about the burning of anything. It occurs even if human beings play no part in initiating it.

The planet, like your body, can tolerate hazards short term. A cigar now and then. Eating at Burger King, now and then.  A volcano or a brush fire, now and then. If it quivers, save it and feed it with your tax dollars. Use your calculator, plus a good reference, and you should be convinced that each single human contributes atmospheric "pollution"  (I've never figured out how carbon dioxide and water -- life's essentials -- became 'pollution'.) to the same extent as does the burning of 40 gallons of gasoline. This means that one automobile and 10 humans are equivalent.

Yes, my comrades, we were all going to be driving atomic powered cars by 1960; turbine engine cars by 1970 and electric cars by 1990. If cheap, non polluting, transportation is your thing, consider all of that unharnessed labor potential of the welfare crowd. Now if we could only find a way to heat those rickshaws.

Take a look at that 5 HP engine sitting on your snow blower or garden tractor and then go to some supply house and ask to see a 5 HP electric motor. When you stop laughing you'll be in a mood to stuff the armature up Gore's or Nader's dark place. Remember the 1973 hype about diesel engines replacing gasoline engines in passenger cars? Well old German Bob told you that would never happen and it didn't. The reason diesel fuel was cheaper than gasoline was because it was not subject to the same taxes. How many aircraft use diesel engines anyway?

One FINDS coal, oil and live trees. They are already HERE. The air has a great bunch of oxygen -- already here. All man has to do is supply the activation energy to get all of it burning. Not so with hydrogen. It's not hanging from the branches ready to be plucked, picked or popped. It has to be manufactured and that takes lotsa energy. In high school chemistry we were presented with a demonstration. An apparatus, using electricity, separated water into oxygen and hydrogen. After measuring the volumes, the gases were mixed in a common chamber and then old prof Byrne stuck a match in it. BOOM! He mentioned that instead of an enjoyable explosion, a controlled burning of the hydrogen could have driven some device. I suggested that the device be an electric generator so we could have the means to obtain more hydrogen. Are you paying attention?

The loop: Take sea water and use electricity to produce hydrogen. If you are sane, you'll let the liberated oxygen escape. If you are human, you'll find something to burn it with. Take the hydrogen and pound it into your wafer-mobile were it generates electricity to be converted into mechanical energy and heat energy. The combustion water blows out the tail pipe and moistens the Mojave dessert thus saving the gila monsters from the task of raising one leg when adjacent to a saguaro cactus. Where does one get the electricity to obtain the hydrogen from the sea water -- from fuel cells, don'cha know?

A person who does well in mathematics is often given credit for being intelligent whereas it is merely a talent, like the ability to play some musical instrument well or balance a ball on your nose. Descartes, for example was one of the most brilliant mathematicians of the 17th century and he believed in the most incredible, and bizarre, nonsense. Tartaglia, I believe, bit the ear off Cardan over a dispute concerning who proved what. Both were great in the mathematics business but absolutely weird when it came to everything else. The number of "genius" mathematicians who bear any resemblance to a sane person, can be counted on your fingers. Even today, this type of person is engaged in finding different ways to compute something which has already been computed. You see, it's not the result which counts but only the busy work involved. This is the stuff "papers" are written about. My "proof" is more "elegant" than yourn. So there, bumhead!

Even the compiler of these Pythagorean proofs has his screw ball quirks. He mentions that proof #1, in the quaternionic section, is beautiful in its simplicity due to a new variety of mathematical symbol manipulation involving vectors.. Of course! Mathematics changes in order to make things easier and if an old theorem is now "easier", then why should he be surprised? One of the girls I tutor asked why I wasn't very excited about determinant and matrix symbols. "No matter how you write it -- algebraic or otherwise -- if you desire a result then the work remains the same." That was my response.

Wayne Plock was always smiling in the rear of our chemistry lecture room. Wayne loved to clandestinely do things here and there in order to surprise people. He was clever in much of the stuff he did and often crude as in when he put a decaying frog in Bill Doty's desk. Wayne reminded me of the fellow who secretly urinates in his neighbor's gasoline tank and then feels smug and superior when the poor fellow's car doesn't start. You'll find this same sh-t eating look on the face of any school math whiz or computer geek. It's only a thin ego mask, for people like this, if really called upon to "haul ass", wouldn't get off the starting line. So, my dear blue-collar working comrade, you've got more spankies in your spine, and sparks in your brain, then the b.s. artists say you have. If you ever decide to again think White, and act White, you'll amaze yourself -- but it won't surprise me..

        The photograph of the German stealth aircraft was the most incredible "artifact" I have ever seen "post" jew war two.

        Although not a pilot, I have had for many years an intense fascination and interest in aviation and military aviation;  especially that pertinent to the years of European self-destruction and externally assisted and "auto" genocide which occurred c.1939 - 1945.

        I always thought that German aircraft were better. Although my "training" that the Germans were the enemy prevented me internally and psychologically from fully appreciating the Teutonic achievements of the Third German Reich in the area of high-performance aircraft design.

        The Focke-Wulf 190 was an remarkable aircraft for it's time; and even after 55 years still looks extremely modern. There were an number of aspects about this aircraft which ought to be discussed.

        There are, generally two sorts of power plant for propellor driven aircraft : radial and inline engines. The P-47 (the "Jug") is an radial engine aircraft;  pistons arranged on a dial around a central hub, very powerful, but aerodynamically very inefficient. The P-51 is an inline engine ship (like the Spitfire);  pistons arranged in a line along the propellor drive shaft. Very efficient aerodynamically, but less powerful in terms of thrust generated by the drive train.

        The Germans "beat" this "square the circle" conundrum. The FW190 was built "radial," but the engine cowling was faired forward and over the engine,  then the skillful German aeronautical engineers placed an large "spinner" cone on the propellor hub. The result: the radial engine delivered more power than the inline Me 109, and the faired engine cowling and big spinner created the aerodynamic characteristics of an inline engine ship.  Essentially the Germans "synthesized" the P-51 and P-47 which the Masonic aviation engineers in Wichita, Kansas, and Santa Clara, California had only been able to build as separate ships.

        Your photograph of the Ho-229 is really remarkable. The aircraft looks as though it had been built yesterday, and then placed in an "weathering" chamber. Incidentally, the ship,  which appears to have lost it's wings, resembles very much the sort of "fantasy" craft which appear in the George Lucas/Stephen Spielberg motion pictures about outer space, etc.

        The assertion that National Socialist Germany was an superior civilization is really inarguable. That photograph "says it all." But even before jew war two, the German aircraft were, even then superior to the ships flown by the "Allies." The Germans pioneered the tube steel and aluminum airframe (light and strong), when the British, Americans and deluded "canadians" were still taking to the air in wood, canvas, and piano-wire contraptions known variously as the "Sopwith Camel," "Sopwith Snipe," (sic), and the DH-2. Built of doped canvas stretched over a wood frame. (Germans of that period also developed the aluminum 'honeycomb' construction for trim tabs, ailerons, etc.plus exceptional advances in adhesive 'bonding' techniques and materials. RF)

        The "monocoque" of "preform" or "unibody" style of airframe assembly was also developed by the "evil" Germans, when the British and their dupes were still flying about in "aircraft" built by tradesmen whose previous experience had been in an coach-works. I am not kidding. (Curtis Wright in WNY, I believe, was a bus building plant before the war came. RF) The "monocoque" style of aircraft construction is still in use to this day.  Most light, private aircraft are "monocoque" ships, and many larger or mid-size commercial aircraft as well.

        And one more thing;  the synchronized machine gun,  timed to fire thru the rapidly spinning blades of the propellor was also an innovation of German origin.  The Allies could never figure out how it was done.  They finally "short-circuited" the arduous process of invention and research by retrieving an synchronized propellor/machine gun system from an German aircraft which had crash-landed behind "Allied" lines relatively intact.

        Prior to this fortuitous development, allied aircraft mounted their guns on the top wing of the "bi-plane" assembly so that the gun fired over the propellor. An particularly brilliant" "compromise" consisted in mounting the guns or guns on the engine cowling, firing directly thru the propellor. Some rounds made it thru the spinning blades, the rest were deflected by special "vanes" mounted on the blades forward of the muzzle, in order to prevent the propellor being shot off.

        A final note. When the Germans developed and began to deploy the V-1 and V-2 rockets, to attack England after 1943, the history I have read makes much of how "barbaric" the Germans were,  how "cowardly" they were to resort to such "base and unmanly" tactics they employed to wage war; (this while the 8th airforce and the RAF were tearing the heart out of
German cities like Dresden and Frankfort day and night).  But no author of this very "jingoistic" history ever remarks that the V-1/V-2 were weapons so far in advance of their time that the Allies had absolutely nothing to deploy in response. The Allies were losing dozens of aircraft and hundreds of airmen day and night,  wasting men, machinery and money at an fantastic rate. Meanwhile the Germans had devised an way to fight the enemy in such an way as to minimize loss of life to the German
military corps and the German population in general.

Again, an most remarkable photograph. Very striking and provocative.

M.R.G. Canada

I can partially understand a man's interest in mammary glands. (1) An indication that his future children will be well fed. (2) An infantile desire to nurse once again. (3) Udders are a hallmark of beauty.

By Michael Leidig in Vienna (7 Jan 2000)

NEO-NAZI groups in Germany are attracting growing numbers of women. They now make up around a third of the membership of far-Right groups and are increasingly preparing the ground for their male counterparts.

Because women are seldom active in violent attacks on foreigners, however, the German government has so far refused to acknowledge the problem or the role women play in fascist organisations. A new study published by the Thüringen state interior ministry found that women were enthusiastically campaigning for neo-nazi causes, even forming their own groups to "promote racial purity and National Socialism".

The researchers have discovered that the women tend to be more dedicated to their cause and show more commitment than their male colleagues. Ulli Jentsch of the Berlin Anti-fascist Archive and Education Centre said: "These women meet every week -- usually for educational work, they are training themselves in the ideology; on why Germany should be for the German workers and on racial purity. They are organising the political work, distributing leaflets and are involved to a degree that most of the men who are content simply to march would never dream of."

Mr Jentsch said: "Many people think that the women behind the far-Right are housewives raising children. The emergence of neo-nazi groups led by female skinheads, the Reenes, was the first sign of a new departure in the scene and it has accelerated from there. Part of the reason is that younger neo-nazis have been growing up inside a social movement, every part of their life is influenced by this twisted ideology. (Yeah, Mike, wanting a healthy White society with better people in it, is sure 'twisted'.) But increasingly women are not joining just because of their boyfriends or husbands, but from their own initiative."

Women's Kammeradschaft groups have been springing up across Germany. Named after the clubs formed by Nazi war veterans, they enable women to meet and educate themselves about the neo-nazi cause. Mr Jentsch said: "These women see themselves as taking control of their own lives." The internet has played a big part in the growing organisation of the female far Right.

On one group's home page, visitors are told: "An ill-informed wife and mother is of no use to our political movement and to the Volk [the people]. Just as her German forerunners once did, she must now fulfil her duty and offer her services to her people."

Copied -- Fair Use Act

      LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's largest public utility ran out of cash to pay its bills on Wednesday, canceled its dividend and begged for state help to buy natural gas for its 13 million customers as officials tried to find a way to save it and a competitor from bankruptcies that could roil the economy.

      PG&E Corp., parent of California's largest utility Pacific Gas and Electric, said on Wednesday it would not pay its traditional fourth-quarter dividend and would delay issuing its latest financial results because of the energy crisis that has sent it and another investor-owned utility, Southern California Edison (news - web sites), deep into the red, leading creditors to refuse to loan it any more money.

Here's some more. Some is in German but the pictures tell it all. Be proud you are White!! And even more so if you are German!!

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/horten_nurflugels.html

http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/archiv/projekte/go229.htm

"What's known is what Dr. Reimar Horten, one of the two brothers who designed this aircraft,  chose to say in his 1993 book: "Nurflèugel : die Geschichte der Horten-Flugzeuge 1933-1960".   Until that time what this aircraft was unknown.  You'll notice that Dr. Horten didn't publish until after the F-117A had been publicly displayed following the Gulf War. There's also some big gaps in Herr Doktor Horten's curriculum vitae post-World War II.  The Lockheed Skunkworks never reveals the identities of personnel involved in ongoing projects.  I think you can add 2+2 as well as me.

The Ho-229's real radar evading performance is still classified. It is known that flying wings have no radar return from the front, which is why the B-2 is a flying wing.  The Horten brothers designed this with a charcoal layer between two plywood skin layers specifically to scatter and reduce radar return.  The Ho-229 airframe was extensively flight tested in early 1944 as a glider.  Except for what Herr Doktor Horten has said, all the German flight test data from that time is either lost or still secret.
Other researchers making FOIA requests to the US Department of Defense have gotten a stock 'there are no records responsive to this request' reply. This means that all captured data and all post war US evaluations of this machine are still classified 55 years later.

If you want to know more, ask the Lockheed Skunkworks (F-117A designers/builders)  Good luck! I'm certain they know exactly what this aircraft can do. In addition to the three V2-4 prototypes there were several completed or almost completed production versions in the Gotha factory when it was captured by the US Army.

If I heard correctly on the radio, people remaining relatively motionless for long periods, such as flights to Australia from the U.S., have circulatory problems which often is manifested as tiny blood clots -- a thrombus. Now, gas what? A class action suit is being filed against some Australian air line because there is evidence that some people have died from this clotting problem while being occupants of their aircraft en route. Gawd! Why do visions of firing squads appear before my eyes?

Several revealing things can be noted. I said nothing about superior or inferior, only that a difference existed. In addition, note that the girl responding said "we" and not "I" which indicates a more communal attitude exists which is certainly expressed in those gossip tidbits which are readily passed along as "secrets".

The female attitude is certainly a gigantic plus relative to the family -- as long as there exists moderating male direction -- but it is a total disaster when applied to the governing of the public life. The piece meal collapse of our society is mainly due to the failure of the White male to think and act as a White male. This failure has created a vacuum which will be filled by non-White males who choose to remain male.

Through an article which I have added to my "letters" folder (see Dr. Breggin) plus conversations with people within school systems, I was not aware of the massive use of drugs as a behavior modifier to combat what essentially is a discipline problem created by the lack of proper child rearing. Kids fidget, squirm and have no attention span beyond 12 seconds. This agitated condition is not conducive to learning. There are two aspects to this: (1) a strong tendency to use drugs to cure ills and (2) the failure to instill self control in children. Both are injected by the woman who either refuses to follow male direction or is so unfortunate as to have bedded down with little other than a sperm donor and orgasm stimulator with a steady paycheck, hopefully.

Nature imposes self-control upon all of its critters in the form of pleasure and pain. Rarely does any animal act against its own interests as most humans spend a lifetime doing. The lioness lets her cubs tangle with the porcupine thus teaching it that some things are best avoided. I remember carrying my wee daughter down a hall lighted with a solitary 100 watt bulb. She was at that point in life where her vocalizations were not much more than blubbers and gurgles. As we passed that light, she always extended her hand in an attempt to grasp it. I kept her away and being slow on the uptake, it took a few days before I realized that my "No, it's hot" was little other than air vibrations and that she was learning nothing about "hot". I decided to teach her. I changed the bulb to a smaller one and tested it by grasping firmly and noting how long it took for me to release my grip. Once satisfied that she could grasp the bulb and feel some pain without damage, I waited for the next opportunity. As we passed the light, I repeated again my little warning about "hot" and allowed the tike to follow her desire. She pulled her hand back with a tear in her eye. Lesson completed. Lesson learned. Months later, when she was walking from here to there and back again, she'd sometimes venture into the kitchen. If she approached the oven, her mother would say nothing but "hot" and our daughter would promptly take another path.

When she was more conversant -- and never forget that kids know words long before they can speak them -- she soon learned definitively, the word "no" and what it meant to continue beyond that signal. While standing at the bookcase, she was engaged in the interesting activity of slowly ripping the protective covers from some of my irreplaceable books. She appeared delighted at the sound of paper being shredded. I told her "no" and that if she continued, she would not like what would follow. Smilingly, she continued and her bright blue eyes darted back and forth to see how daddy was responding. I did respond -- over my knee, her bottom bared and I with a ping ping paddle balanced between my thumb and forefinger. I intended one hard smack -- enough to make a noise and impart a measure of non damaging pain. The pivoting effect of my grasp would prevent the paddle from taking on a clubbing nature. Of this I forewarned her. The smack brought forth a small stream of tears. Lesson completed. Lesson learned. When daddy or mommy says "no" then it is quite advantageous to alter course. Today, I might be in court for "child abuse" but I should remark that I never resorted to this again as the lesson was well put. Years later, while in a checkout line, my daughter asked if she could have a certain package of gum which she pointed to -- she never fondled or played with anything in any store. I said "no" and she talked about something else. The woman ahead of me appeared bewildered at the sight of a non argumentative child and asked, "How did you do that?" I replied that my daughter knew what the word 'no' meant.

As I think back, the essential here is that "poochy's" parents were people of their word and that is something absolutely essential if you wish a top notch family, community or nation. When children are allowed to grow up as weeds, doing whatever according to the Spock crap, they will grow up to be adult weeds and far more pesky. When told to be home at 10:00 PM, I could go to bed at 9:00 PM knowing full well that at 10:05 PM, my daughter would be in the bathroom brushing her teeth.

A woman is very weak in the discipline area as most do their utmost to guard their child from any pain whether from disease or the lack of following some rule. Women appear unable to punish a child unless they themselves are in an angry mood. They command, and command, and command, but the child ignores the whole thing anyway. Why? Because there has been no establishment between the parent's dictate and an unpleasant outcome for disobeying. In fact, the whole freaking society is drowning in this sort of feel-good anarchy. Also, when it comes to pain what is better than giving the child some parcel of drugs? Poor baby has a headache? Pop some aspirin. Got a scratch on your finger? Let's go to the emergency room. My mom was of stouter stuff. If she wasn't, dad wouldn't have married her. "Mom, I don't feel well." "Go lie down for a while and be quiet. If you still don't feel well, I'll take a look at you." (Now I can hear all of those harpies bellowing "What if....?" with thoughts of avalanches and typhoons filling their acorn sized brains.)

I learned to sit still at an early age. An intermediate punishment was sometimes to sit motionless and quiet for periods of one half hour. If we didn't, there was always the thought of dad and his "word", something we never wanted to invoke. I knew my father to be a man of his word and if he said something not nice would follow our attempts at infantile insurrection, we believed him.

I learned to like sitting still and observing. Grandfather would take us out under the old maple tree to "park", as he put it, silently for lengthy periods after which we'd describe all that we heard and saw, from the fireflies to the frogs. This home discipline carried over into my schools years where information presented was quickly absorbed. You young readers should know that schools were then a place of learning and not an area to be entertained so that mommys can feel happy that their kiddies are also "happy". Incidentally, I have never used the term "bored" in my life and frankly do not know what people feel when they use that term. While at Camp Picket, we often stood at 'parade rest' for what seemed like eternity -- a special quirk of our handsome commanding officer and his equally handsome red headed sergeant. While looking straight ahead, I took the opportunity to enhance my peripheral vision by describing to myself what went on outside the reach of forward vision.

I am not convinced that today's American society represents the best of anything. It can be improved and improved greatly but that simply cannot happen when men choose not to be men and toss their leadership responsibility upon the backs of either the inexperienced or their women, even if such people delude themselves into believing that they are up to the job. The plethora of safety gadgets has deluded many in to thinking that they are brave, daring, adventurous and what not.

Never send a boy, or a woman, to do a man's job.