January 30, 2013

Spingola Speaks 2013.01.30

Guest: 30.06 talks about the ideological nature of the NSDAP's 25-Point program on this 80-year-anniversary , he also talked about the events and mentality in the Weimar Republic and the devastation, hyper inflation and the Jewish influence.

Deanna's site

News Page

Official chat room

Join Spingola Speaks Email List



Anonymous said...

Excellent work and presentation 30!

Anonymous said...

Here is some evidence that contradicts the caller David and his assertion the British royals are really German.

Queen Elizabeth II is Heir to Great Bible Promises - The Lord promised that the line of David would continue to occupy the throne of Israel "until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him."
Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is a reminder that the Sceptre of Judah still exercises its Royal prerogative over the servant nation of God's immutable choice.

The Untold Story of Israel and The Jewish Queen of England


Anonymous said...

The Yiddish Empire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7_XqQxTHKA


Anonymous said...


So Christ will come back, whenever that is, and walk up to the British throne and say to whoever might be sitting on it at the time, "Thanks for keeping my seat warm". Get a grip!

Actually there need not be a continuation on earth of the lineage of David. Christ was it.

Anonymous said...

44Deanna FANTASTIC! So hope you have 30006 on again; Packed with good information and FACTS; ie: Real History; not the jew LIES

Anonymous said...

Oh Dear! Just realized that I had typed in the robot id# as part of the comment but apologize! It does however give me an excuse for further praise.

Deanna, I kept saying this "is one of your best, or the best" ... But long ago I just gave up because how do you rate good better, best ad infinitum? All of your programs are truly good. So hope you have 30006 on again; this program was packed with much needed History; real factual History and not propaganda.

Anonymous said...

How valid is the following recollection by Hans Schmidt ?

"Germany was National Socialist, but free enterprise flourished during the entire Hitler years. No company was nationalized. No small businessman was stopped from opening up his own store. I myself worked during the war for a company that can only be called part of international capitalism. If you owned shares, nobody confiscated them, like the allies did in 1945."

Well, quite valid, because this does not clash with what the 13th point advocated :

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

Therefore : 'nationalization' of businesses only applied to monopolistic corporations or trusts, not to small businesses


* On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler clarified section seventeen in the programme in order to stop political mischaracterizations: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the programme of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary:

Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on

the principle of private property,

it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land."

The principle of 'private property,' something completely illegal under communism, of its very essence belongs to the individual, as an extension of his work done in ways that do not hurt any other individual under the Jeffersonian American system and in ways that do not hurt the national welfare as Hitler had defined it under National Socialism. So the two systems are not as radically different as many automatically assume.

A system like National Socialism absolutely requires a 'moral' and 'honest' leader who is not easily corrupted because it is he who has to correctly judge what the national welfare is at any given time and what limits the individual to the collective whereas under the Jeffersonian system, the individual is only limited by the equal rights of other individuals by principle and the 'illegal' is not the 'immoral' nor someone's idea of morality but only that which is initiated force or fraud and unconsented to by one party. (this created the uniquely American measures of honor as so famously expounded on by de Tocqueville (see below)



Anonymous said...

"Any nation would furnish us with similar grounds of observation; for, as I have already remarked, whenever men collect together as a distinct community, the notion of honor instantly grows up amongst them; that is to say, a system of
opinions peculiar to themselves as to what is blamable or commendable; and these peculiar rules always originate in
the special habits and special interests of the community. This is applicable to a certain extent to democratic communities
as well as to others, as we shall now proceed to prove by the example of the Americans. Some loose notions of the old aristocratic honor of Europe are still to be found scattered amongst the opinions of the Americans; but these traditional opinions are few in number, they have but little root in the country, and but little power. They are like a religion which has still some temples left standing, though men have ceased to believe in it. But amidst these half-obliterated notions of exotic honor, some new opinions have
sprung up, which constitute what may be termed in our days
American honor. I have shown how the Americans are constantly driven to engage in commerce and industry. Their origin, their social condition, their political institutions, and even the spot they inhabit, urge them irresistibly in this direction.
Their present condition is then that of an almost exclusively manufacturing and commercial association, placed in the midst of a new and boundless country, which their principal object is to explore for purposes of profit. This is the characteristic which most peculiarly distinguishes the
American people from all others at the present time. All those
quiet virtues which tend to give a regular movement to the community, and to encourage business, will therefore be held in peculiar honor by that people, and to neglect those virtues will be to incur public contempt. All the more turbulent virtues, which often dazzle, but more frequently disturb society, will on the contrary occupy a subordinate rank in the estimation of this same people: they may be neglected
without forfeiting the esteem of the community - to acquire
them would perhaps be to run a risk of losing it."

~Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America - Chapter XVIII:
"Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -"

Anonymous said...

"The Americans make a no less arbitrary classification of
men’s vices. There are certain propensities which appear censurable
to the general reason and the universal conscience of
mankind, but which happen to agree with the peculiar and
temporary wants of the American community: these propensities
are lightly reproved, sometimes even encouraged;
for instance, the love of wealth and the secondary propensities
connected with it may be more particularly cited. To
clear, to till, and to transform the vast uninhabited continent
which is his domain, the American requires the daily
support of an energetic passion; that passion can only be the
love of wealth; the passion for wealth is therefore not reprobated
in America, and provided it does not go beyond the
bounds assigned to it for public security, it is held in honor.
The American lauds as a noble and praiseworthy ambition
what our own forefathers in the Middle Ages stigmatized as
servile cupidity, just as he treats as a blind and barbarous
frenzy that ardor of conquest and martial temper which bore
them to battle. In the United States fortunes are lost and
regained without difficulty; the country is boundless, and its
resources inexhaustible. The people have all the wants and
cravings of a growing creature; and whatever be their efforts,
they are always surrounded by more than they can appropriate.
It is not the ruin of a few individuals which may be soon
repaired, but the inactivity and sloth of the community at
large which would be fatal to such a people. Boldness of
enterprise is the foremost cause of its rapid progress, its
strength, and its greatness. Commercial business is there like
a vast lottery, by which a small number of men continually
lose, but the State is always a gainer; such a people ought
therefore to encourage and do honor to boldness in commercial
speculations. But any bold speculation risks the fortune
of the speculator and of all those who put their trust in
him. The Americans, who make a virtue of commercial temerity,
have no right in any case to brand with disgrace those
who practice it. Hence arises the strange indulgence which is
shown to bankrupts in the United States; their honor does
not suffer by such an accident. In this respect the Americans
differ, not only from the nations of Europe, but from all the
commercial nations of our time, and accordingly they resemble
none of them in their position or their wants.

In America all those vices which tend to impair the purity
of morals, and to destroy the conjugal tie, are treated with a
degree of severity which is unknown in the rest of the world.
At first sight this seems strangely at variance with the tolerance
shown there on other subjects, and one is surprised to
meet with a morality so relaxed and so austere amongst the
selfsame people. But these things are less incoherent than
they seem to be. Public opinion in the United States very
gently represses that love of wealth which promotes the commercial
greatness and the prosperity of the nation, and it
especially condemns that laxity of morals which diverts the
human mind from the pursuit of well-being, and disturbs
the internal order of domestic life which is so necessary to
success in business. To earn the esteem of their countrymen,
the Americans are therefore constrained to adapt themselves
to orderly habits – and it may be said in this sense that they
make it a matter of honor to live chastely."

--Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America - Chapter XVIII:
"Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -"

Anonymous said...

"On one point American honor accords with the notions of
honor acknowledged in Europe; it places courage as the highest
virtue, and treats it as the greatest of the moral necessities
of man; but the notion of courage itself assumes a different
aspect. In the United States martial valor is but little prized;
the courage which is best known and most esteemed is that
which emboldens men to brave the dangers of the ocean, in
order to arrive earlier in port - to support the privations of
the wilderness without complaint, and solitude more cruel
than privations - the courage which renders them almost
insensible to the loss of a fortune laboriously acquired, and
instantly prompts to fresh exertions to make another. Courage
of this kind is peculiarly necessary to the maintenance
and prosperity of the American communities, and it is held
by them in peculiar honor and estimation; to betray a want
of it is to incur certain disgrace."

"When ranks are commingled and privileges abolished,
the men of whom a nation is composed being once more
equal and alike, their interests and wants become identical,
and all the peculiar notions which each caste styled honor
successively disappear: the notion of honor no longer proceeds
from any other source than the wants peculiar to the
nation at large, and it denotes the individual character of
that nation to the world. Lastly, if it be allowable to suppose
that all the races of mankind should be commingled, and
that all the peoples of earth should ultimately come to have
the same interests, the same wants, undistinguished from
each other by any characteristic peculiarities, no conventional
value whatever would then be attached to men’s actions; they
would all be regarded by all in the same light; the general
necessities of mankind, revealed by conscience to every man,
would become the common standard. The simple and general
notions of right and wrong only would then be recognized
in the world, to which, by a natural and necessary tie,
the idea of censure or approbation would be attached. Thus,
to comprise all my meaning in a single proposition, the dissimilarities
and inequalities of men gave rise to the notion of
honor; that notion is weakened in proportion as these differences
are obliterated, and with them it would disappear."
~Alexis de Tocqueville - from Democracy in America - Chapter XVIII:
"Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -"


Anonymous said...

Thank for this awesome talk!