[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.c++

A toy example of embedding C code in lisp and vice versa

A toy example of embedding C code in lisp and vice versa

bolega

6/12/2010 7:08:00 PM

Here is a link to a thread that discusses this topic but there is no
complete example.

http://objectmix.com/lisp/362409-howto-use-lisp-scripting-language-wit...

Lars Lune has a good section on code by searching this string

"On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:16:00 -0700, Blackguester wrote:"

but his code is replaced with smileys and even source shows it. I
could not muster the confidence as a newbie to go into it by myself.
Unless a guru can guide and explain.

http://common-lisp.net/pro...
http://common-lisp.net/pro...manual/html_node/Tutorial.html
http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Foreign-Function-Inte...

Should I pick SBCL or ECL ? I have a long term view.


Tamas K Papp

6/12/2010 7:42:00 PM

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:08:17 -0700, bolega wrote:

> Here is a link to a thread that discusses this topic but there is no
> complete example.
>
> http://objectmix.com/lisp/362409-howto-use-lisp-scripting...
within-c.html
>
> Lars Lune has a good section on code by searching this string
>
> "On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:16:00 -0700, Blackguester wrote:"
>
> but his code is replaced with smileys and even source shows it. I could
> not muster the confidence as a newbie to go into it by myself. Unless a
> guru can guide and explain.
>
> http://common-lisp.net/pro...
> http://common-lisp.net/pro...manual/html_node/Tutorial.html
> http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Foreign-Function-Inte...
>
> Should I pick SBCL or ECL ? I have a long term view.

Even though the two issues are related, I would treat them separately.

Calling C functions from CL is best done using CFFI. This library
provides a unified, portable interface across different
implementations. It will not require that you commit yourself to
either one. The CFFI manual has a step-by-step tutorial, and CFFI has
a mailing list where nice people will answer your questions.

For embedding, I would go for ECL. See their FAQ (Section 2) and
reference manual.

What is it precisely that you are trying to do?

Also, why are you cross-posting to so many different newsgroups? Please
familiarize yourself with usenet netiquette, otherwise you might end up
on ignore lists very quickly.

Tamas

bolega

6/12/2010 7:51:00 PM

On Jun 12, 12:08 pm, bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a link to a thread that discusses this topic but there is no
> complete example.
>
> http://objectmix.com/lisp/362409-howto-use-lisp-scripting-l......
>
> Lars Lune has a good section on code by searching this string
>
> "On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:16:00 -0700, Blackguester wrote:"
>
> but his code is replaced with smileys and even source shows it. I
> could not muster the confidence as a newbie to go into it by myself.
> Unless a guru can guide and explain.
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/manual/html_node/Tutorial.htmlhttp://www.sbcl.org/manual/Foreign-Function-Inte...
>
> Should I pick SBCL or ECL ? I have a long term view.

http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Calling-Lisp-From-C.html#Calling-L...

8.7.4 Calling Lisp From C

Calling Lisp functions from C is sometimes possible, but is extremely
hackish and poorly supported as of SBCL 0.7.5. See funcall0 ...
funcall3 in the runtime system. The arguments must be valid SBCL
object descriptors (so that e.g. fixnums must be left-shifted by 2.)
As of SBCL 0.7.5, the format of object descriptors is documented only
by the source code and, in parts, by the old CMUCL INTERNALS
documentation.

Note that the garbage collector moves objects, and won't be able to
fix up any references in C variables. There are three mechanisms for
coping with this:

1. The sb-ext:purify moves all live Lisp data into static or read-
only areas such that it will never be moved (or freed) again in the
life of the Lisp session
2. sb-sys:with-pinned-objects is a macro which arranges for some
set of objects to be pinned in memory for the dynamic extent of its
body forms. On ports which use the generational garbage collector (as
of SBCL 0.8.3, only the x86) this has a page granularity - i.e. the
entire 4k page or pages containing the objects will be locked down. On
other ports it is implemented by turning off GC for the duration (so
could be said to have a whole-world granularity).
3. Disable GC, using the without-gcing macro.


[Q] How easy is it to call ECL http://sourceforge.net/proj...
from C ?

Any toy example of doing this ?

what type of problem set would advise us that we embed C in LISP and
where lisp in C ?

Some toy examples ? send me email if you will share thru private
correspondance only.


6/12/2010 8:11:00 PM

bolega <gnuist006@gmail.com> writes:

> Here is a link to a thread that discusses this topic but there is no
> complete example.
>
> http://objectmix.com/lisp/362409-howto-use-lisp-scripting-language-wit...
>
> Lars Lune has a good section on code by searching this string
>
> "On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:16:00 -0700, Blackguester wrote:"
>
> but his code is replaced with smileys and even source shows it. I
> could not muster the confidence as a newbie to go into it by myself.
> Unless a guru can guide and explain.
>
> http://common-lisp.net/pro...
> http://common-lisp.net/pro...manual/html_node/Tutorial.html
> http://www.sbcl.org/manual/Foreign-Function-Inte...
>
> Should I pick SBCL or ECL ? I have a long term view.

In the long term, we're all dead.

The point of a STANDARD, is that you can write programs that will work
equally on any implementation.

You are not asking yourself whether in the long term, you should buy
today an Intel or an AMD process. That's because in the long term, it
doesn't matter since they both implement the same stadanrd virtual
machine.

Guess what? It's the same for all the CL implementations: they all
implement the same virtual machine! The portable Common Lisp Virtual
Machine.

So just write your program in portable Common Lisp, and in the long
term they will run on any CL implementation.


Actually, in the long term you could even use some extensions or
divergent Lisp stuff, since it's Lisp, it's easy to write
compatibility layers. For example, here is how you could in the long
term run code written 50 years ago, today in any Common Lisp
implementation:
http://www.informat...develop/lisp/small-cl-pgms...

That is, homoiconicity and easy meta-programming is essential to long
term perenity of code.



Now if your problem is to mix C code and Lisp code, the only question
you may have to ask yourself is in what language the entry point will
be written.

If in Lisp, you can use any CL implementation that has FFI (or CFFI
for the portability), and call any C code put in a library.

If in C, then you will have to use ECL, which can be used embedded in
a C program as a C library.

Frankly, this is really a question of no relevance, since you can
always s/int main/extern int my_application_main/ in your C sources
and link it into a library instead of a program, to be loaded in SBCL
or any other CL.



Perhaps you could start to learn a use Common Lisp, so that you would
provide us with more interesting questions?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informat...

bolega

6/12/2010 8:47:00 PM

On Jun 12, 1:10 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Now if your problem is to mix C code and Lisp code, the only question
> you may have to ask yourself is in what language the entry point will
> be written.
>
> If in Lisp, you can use any CL implementation that has FFI (or CFFI
> for the portability), and call any C code put in a library.
>
> If in C, then you will have to use ECL, which can be used embedded in
> a C program as a C library.
>
> Frankly, this is really a question of no relevance, since you can
> always s/int main/extern int my_application_main/ in your C sources
> and link it into a library instead of a program, to be loaded in SBCL
> or any other CL.
>
> Perhaps you could start to learn a use Common Lisp, so that you would
> provide us with more interesting questions?

Thats why I was asking for a toy example from someone who has done it.
I can download the programs ECL and Allegro. One toy example of each
paradigm, including the third one of the libraries you mention. Most
likely, it would be including some C/Python library for efficiency and
availability and reuse in Lisp code to avoid rewrite.

nanothermite911fbibustards

6/13/2010 9:40:00 PM

On Jun 12, 12:08 pm, bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a link to a thread that discusses this topic but there is no
> complete example.
>
> http://objectmix.com/lisp/362409-howto-use-lisp-scripting-l......
>
> Lars Lune has a good section on code by searching this string
>
> "On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:16:00 -0700, Blackguester wrote:"
>
> but his code is replaced with smileys and even source shows it. I
> could not muster the confidence as a newbie to go into it by myself.
> Unless a guru can guide and explain.
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/manual/html_node/Tutorial.htmlhttp://www.sbcl.org/manual/Foreign-Function-Inte...
>
> Should I pick SBCL or ECL ? I have a long term view.

8.8 Step-By-Step Example of the Foreign Function Interface

This section presents a complete example of an interface to a somewhat
complicated C function.

Suppose you have the following C function which you want to be able to
call from Lisp in the file test.c

struct c_struct
{
int x;
char *s;
};

struct c_struct *c_function (i, s, r, a)
int i;
char *s;
struct c_struct *r;
int a[10];
{
int j;
struct c_struct *r2;

printf("i = %d\n", i);
printf("s = %s\n", s);
printf("r->x = %d\n", r->x);
printf("r->s = %s\n", r->s);
for (j = 0; j < 10; j++) printf("a[%d] = %d.\n", j, a[j]);
r2 = (struct c_struct *) malloc (sizeof(struct c_struct));
r2->x = i + 5;
r2->s = "a C string";
return(r2);
};

It is possible to call this C function from Lisp using the file
test.lisp containing

(cl:defpackage "TEST-C-CALL" (:use "CL" "SB-ALIEN" "SB-C-CALL"))
(cl:in-package "TEST-C-CALL")

;;; Define the record C-STRUCT in Lisp.
(define-alien-type nil
(struct c-struct
(x int)
(s c-string)))

;;; Define the Lisp function interface to the C routine. It
returns a
;;; pointer to a record of type C-STRUCT. It accepts four
parameters:
;;; I, an int; S, a pointer to a string; R, a pointer to a C-
STRUCT
;;; record; and A, a pointer to the array of 10 ints.
;;;
;;; The INLINE declaration eliminates some efficiency notes about
heap
;;; allocation of alien values.
(declaim (inline c-function))
(define-alien-routine c-function
(* (struct c-struct))
(i int)
(s c-string)
(r (* (struct c-struct)))
(a (array int 10)))

;;; a function which sets up the parameters to the C function and
;;; actually calls it
(defun call-cfun ()
(with-alien ((ar (array int 10))
(c-struct (struct c-struct)))
(dotimes (i 10) ; Fill array.
(setf (deref ar i) i))
(setf (slot c-struct 'x) 20)
(setf (slot c-struct 's) "a Lisp string")

(with-alien ((res (* (struct c-struct))
(c-function 5 "another Lisp string" (addr c-
struct) ar)))
(format t "~&amp;back from C function~%")
(multiple-value-prog1
(values (slot res 'x)
(slot res 's))

;; Deallocate result. (after we are done referring to it:
;; "Pillage, *then* burn.")
(free-alien res)))))

To execute the above example, it is necessary to compile the C
routine, e.g.: `cc -c test.c && ld -shared -o test.so test.o' (In
order to enable incremental loading with some linkers, you may need to
say `cc -G 0 -c test.c')

Once the C code has been compiled, you can start up Lisp and load it
in: `sbcl'. Lisp should start up with its normal prompt.

Within Lisp, compile the Lisp file. (This step can be done separately.
You don't have to recompile every time.) `(compile-file "test.lisp")'

Within Lisp, load the foreign object file to define the necessary
symbols: `(load-shared-object "test.so")'.

Now you can load the compiled Lisp (“fasl”) file into Lisp: `(load
"test.fasl")' And once the Lisp file is loaded, you can call the Lisp
routine that sets up the parameters and calls the C function: `(test-c-
call::call-cfun)'

The C routine should print the following information to standard
output:

i = 5
s = another Lisp string
r->x = 20
r->s = a Lisp string
a[0] = 0.
a[1] = 1.
a[2] = 2.
a[3] = 3.
a[4] = 4.
a[5] = 5.
a[6] = 6.
a[7] = 7.
a[8] = 8.
a[9] = 9.

After return from the C function, the Lisp wrapper function should
print the following output:

back from C function

And upon return from the Lisp wrapper function, before the next prompt
is printed, the Lisp read-eval-print loop should print the following
return values:

10
"a C string"

nanothermite911fbibustards

6/13/2010 9:43:00 PM

On Jun 13, 2:40 pm, nanothermite911fbibustards
<nanothermite911fbibusta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 12:08 pm, bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here is a link to a thread that discusses this topic but there is no
> > complete example.
>
> >http://objectmix.com/lisp/362409-howto-use-lisp-scripting-l......
>
> > Lars Lune has a good section on code by searching this string
>
> > "On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:16:00 -0700, Blackguester wrote:"
>
> > but his code is replaced with smileys and even source shows it. I
> > could not muster the confidence as a newbie to go into it by myself.
> > Unless a guru can guide and explain.
>
> >http://common-lisp.net/project/cffi/http://common-lisp.net/......
>
> > Should I pick SBCL or ECL ? I have a long term view.
>
> 8.8 Step-By-Step Example of the Foreign Function Interface
>
> This section presents a complete example of an interface to a somewhat
> complicated C function.
>
> Suppose you have the following C function which you want to be able to
> call from Lisp in the file test.c
>
>      struct c_struct
>      {
>        int x;
>        char *s;
>      };
>
>      struct c_struct *c_function (i, s, r, a)
>          int i;
>          char *s;
>          struct c_struct *r;
>          int a[10];
>      {
>        int j;
>        struct c_struct *r2;
>
>        printf("i = %d\n", i);
>        printf("s = %s\n", s);
>        printf("r->x = %d\n", r->x);
>        printf("r->s = %s\n", r->s);
>        for (j = 0; j < 10; j++) printf("a[%d] = %d.\n", j, a[j]);
>        r2 = (struct c_struct *) malloc (sizeof(struct c_struct));
>        r2->x = i + 5;
>        r2->s = "a C string";
>        return(r2);
>      };
>
> It is possible to call this C function from Lisp using the file
> test.lisp containing
>
>      (cl:defpackage "TEST-C-CALL" (:use "CL" "SB-ALIEN" "SB-C-CALL"))
>      (cl:in-package "TEST-C-CALL")
>
>      ;;; Define the record C-STRUCT in Lisp.
>      (define-alien-type nil
>          (struct c-struct
>                  (x int)
>                  (s c-string)))
>
>      ;;; Define the Lisp function interface to the C routine.  It
> returns a
>      ;;; pointer to a record of type C-STRUCT.  It accepts four
> parameters:
>      ;;; I, an int; S, a pointer to a string; R, a pointer to a C-
> STRUCT
>      ;;; record; and A, a pointer to the array of 10 ints.
>      ;;;
>      ;;; The INLINE declaration eliminates some efficiency notes about
> heap
>      ;;; allocation of alien values.
>      (declaim (inline c-function))
>      (define-alien-routine c-function
>          (* (struct c-struct))
>        (i int)
>        (s c-string)
>        (r (* (struct c-struct)))
>        (a (array int 10)))
>
>      ;;; a function which sets up the parameters to the C function and
>      ;;; actually calls it
>      (defun call-cfun ()
>        (with-alien ((ar (array int 10))
>                     (c-struct (struct c-struct)))
>          (dotimes (i 10)                     ; Fill array.
>            (setf (deref ar i) i))
>          (setf (slot c-struct 'x) 20)
>          (setf (slot c-struct 's) "a Lisp string")
>
>          (with-alien ((res (* (struct c-struct))
>                            (c-function 5 "another Lisp string" (addr c-
> struct) ar)))
>            (format t "~&amp;back from C function~%")
>            (multiple-value-prog1
>                (values (slot res 'x)
>                        (slot res 's))
>
>              ;; Deallocate result. (after we are done referring to it:
>              ;; "Pillage, *then* burn.")
>              (free-alien res)))))
>
> To execute the above example, it is necessary to compile the C
> routine, e.g.: `cc -c test.c && ld -shared -o test.so test.o' (In
> order to enable incremental loading with some linkers, you may need to
> say `cc -G 0 -c test.c')
>
> Once the C code has been compiled, you can start up Lisp and load it
> in: `sbcl'. Lisp should start up with its normal prompt.
>
> Within Lisp, compile the Lisp file. (This step can be done separately.
> You don't have to recompile every time.) `(compile-file "test.lisp")'
>
> Within Lisp, load the foreign object file to define the necessary
> symbols: `(load-shared-object "test.so")'.
>
> Now you can load the compiled Lisp (“fasl”) file into Lisp: `(load
> "test.fasl")' And once the Lisp file is loaded, you can call the Lisp
> routine that sets up the parameters and calls the C function: `(test-c-
> call::call-cfun)'
>
> The C routine should print the following information to standard
> output:
>
>      i = 5
>      s = another Lisp string
>      r->x = 20
>      r->s = a Lisp string
>      a[0] = 0.
>      a[1] = 1.
>      a[2] = 2.
>      a[3] = 3.
>      a[4] = 4.
>      a[5] = 5.
>      a[6] = 6.
>      a[7] = 7.
>      a[8] = 8.
>      a[9] = 9.
>
> After return from the C function, the Lisp wrapper function should
> print the following output:
>
>      back from C function
>
> And upon return from the Lisp wrapper function, before the next prompt
> is printed, the Lisp read-eval-print loop should print the following
> return values:
>
>      10
>      "a C string"

My Sig was missed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...

Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ?
Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did
you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911
investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put
the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon
Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and
puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without
TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did
you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent
little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0...

There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian
courts.

FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but
only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of
Non-whites in all parts of the world.

Daily 911 news : http://911b...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...

nanothermite911fbibustards

7/3/2010 7:13:00 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening
speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to
throw the United States into a third world war.

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening
speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to
throw the United States into a third world war. It was made a short
time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the
Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question
and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of
patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may
buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your
community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on
Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I
mean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth
and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take
you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin Freedman.

(applause)

[Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have
never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you
now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this
country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to
send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will
help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the
world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as
Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to
pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things,
as Christians.

Now, first of all, I'd like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 --
that was shortly before elections -- Senator Kennedy, who is now the
President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an
address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to
reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed
forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime
set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that
area.

In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their
homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine
against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to
their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot
to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to
follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the
last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to
return to their homes.

Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight
with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these
people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed
insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern
Europe... when that happens, the United States will trigger World War
III.

You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as
the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will
take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that
will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their
difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war
on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back
into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends
your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they
stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War
III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that
war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one
nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for
such a cause.

I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the
United Nations -- and of the ninety-nine nations there, I've consulted
with maybe seventy of them -- and when we go to war in Palestine to
help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these
innocent people we're not going to have a man there to fight with us
as our ally.

And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well,
four days after President Kennedy -- or he was then Senator Kennedy --
made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a
meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate,
the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less,
since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

Not only that... they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army,
and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area
of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them,
they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the
Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every
Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every
independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the
world's total population. Eighty percent of the world's population.
Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our
enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human
beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian
population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians... the non-
white nations of the world, and that's what we face.

And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United
States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control
of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go
into here at this -- time I'll be glad to answer questions, however,
to support that statement -- the Zionists and their co-religionists
rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of
this country.

Now, you say, 'well, that's a very broad statement to make', but
let me show what happened while you were -- I don't want to wear that
out --- let me show what happened while WE were all asleep. I'm
including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred
and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are
few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on
one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side
by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it
nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a
surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic
Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her
soldiers, stood there with one week's food supply facing her -- and
after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of
the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The
Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going
home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the
Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany -- not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not
an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here
was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a
negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis.
That means: “Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was
before the war started.”

Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that.
Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this
negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or
going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented
the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and
-- I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all
the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is
curious, or doesn't believe what I'm saying is at all possible -- the
Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said:
“Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up.
You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by
Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as
your ally.”

The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh;
we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told
England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as
your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us
Palestine after you win the war.”

In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United
States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is
Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-
Hungary, and Turkey.”

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as
the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any
reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain -- that
never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known
as Palestine -- should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the
Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October,
nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that -- I don't know
how many here remember it -- the United States, which was almost
totally pro-German -- totally pro-German -- because the newspapers
here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of
mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they
were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came
from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to
win this war. So the German bankers -- the German-Jews -- Kuhn Loeb
and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to
finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood
aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with
Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they
fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting
Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that
time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red
to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd
been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having
fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a
sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were
Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off
babies' hands. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to
Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from
England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on
President Wilson and get the United States into the war." And that
did happen. That's how the United States got into the war. We had no
more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to
be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war -- World War One -- in which the United States
participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there
-- we were railroaded into it -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered
into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain
Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United
States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World
War One. Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and
they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have
something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your
bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they
didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten
years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the
form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that
the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was
called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay
the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting
the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration,
that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar
bill. And I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States
went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in
there, and it's history. You know what happened. Now, when the war
was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace
Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation
representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought
to know. Now what happened?

The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up
Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a
right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How
about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the
knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans,
for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That's why the
United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time
realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific
reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted
Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

Now, that brings us to another very interesting point. When the
Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time,
the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than
they had been in Germany.

You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important
in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You
had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German
Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who
was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in
Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the
world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about
that. Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”

It was a sellout that I can best compare -- suppose the United
States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning.
And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let's quit. We offer you peace
terms. Let's forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China
came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them
into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with
reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.

Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the
Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we
thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out
to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was
brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United
States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare
show his face on any street. There wouldn't be lampposts enough,
convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've
been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist
revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of
Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And
they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the
river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-
called “Jewish commonwealth.”

Now, Nahum Sokolow -- all the great leaders, the big names that
you read about in connection with Zionism today -- they, in 1919,
1920, '21, '22, and '23, they wrote in all their papers -- and the
press was filled with their statements -- that "the feeling against
the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this
great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the
United States into the war against them."

The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in
1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-
Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no
sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious
belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but
religious.

Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down
the shades and said “Shema' Yisrael” or “Our Father.” No one cared in
Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling
that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans
held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at
all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason
for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of
nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They
built up world trade.

You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time
of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300
-- three hundred! -- small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and
so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And
between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and
Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years
after that time they became one of the world's great powers. Their
navy was rivalling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over
the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And
what happened? What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that:
"We must slap down Germany", because there isn't one historian in the
world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided
to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after
that?

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her
defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of
any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of
Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the
State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State
Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull
sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political
prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine
condition.

They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they
were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because
the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe
at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and
labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They
didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out
Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

So they did take appropriate action against them [against the
Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever
they could? They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or
the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold
us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn't know what to do,
so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the
world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire
Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether
he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can't treat us that
way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving
this ultimatum upon you.” Well, the Germans told them. . . you can
imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?

They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything
to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? --- Uh, there were
no Communists in Germany at that time. they were called 'Social
Democrats.)

Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now
using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very
material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the
Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl
Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government
for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to
Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over
Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same
fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for
safety and for security.

Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was
quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back
into their former -- their status -- and the Germans fought them in
every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone's head. The
same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were
interested in liquor, and they didn't fight one another with pistols,
they did it every way they could.

Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany.
And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and
there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of
Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they
controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with
cheap money -- you know the way the Mark was devalued -- they bought
up practically everything.

Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the
World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr.
Untermeyer came back to the United States -- who was the head of the
American delegation and the president of the whole conference -- and
he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout
the United States in which he said:

"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We
are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are
going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide
boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are
dependent upon their export business."

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to
be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what
they exported. Their labor. So if Germany could not export, two
thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There just was
not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on
page -- a whole page -- in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr.
Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: “this economic boycott is our
means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in
the NRA" . [National Recovery Administration] -- which some of you
may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed
the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against
Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in
any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on
it.

In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they
had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the
river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found
a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs:
"Hitler", "murderer", and so forth, and like -- something like these
sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who
also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came
from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany". Well, they were cotton
stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I've been
observing women's legs in the last twenty years, I haven't seen a pair
with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with
hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "MURDERS" and
"HITLERITES", and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been
hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation,
there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these
people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of
work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do
that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted
swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper
who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into
surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who
their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a
young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot
one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really
started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them
then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that -- I don't like to use the word
'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to
you still, so I'll have to use it -- the only reason that there was
any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible:
number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide
boycott, and number three -- did I say for World War One, they were
responsible? For the boycott -- and also for World War II, because
after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the
Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to
survive.

In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the
Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or
Communist: there is no in between. It's going to be Christian or it's
going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: "We're going to keep
it Christian if possible". And they started to re-arm.

And there intention was -- by that time the United States had
recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 -- the
Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: "Well,
our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we
in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon,
unless we are strong."

And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your
money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against
40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their
devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the
world.

Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World
War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers
my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of
megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of
TNT. One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs
have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was
when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the
nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200
megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the
Soviet Union have.

So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may
develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it
take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes
up on Act III. Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act
III is going to be World War III.

The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists
everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United
States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for
their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing
here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it,
and it's known all over the world.

Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your
son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you
don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the
Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to
war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the
United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it.

Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it.
Other 's knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was
going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912
campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around
the office there.

I was 'confidential man' to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was
chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and
Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President
Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them
drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what
has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the
Zionist movement.

Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the
two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as
incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn
baby. And that's how they got us into World War I, while we all
slept.

Now, at this moment... at this moment they may be planning this
World War III, in which we don't stand a chance even if they don't use
nuclear bombs. How can the United States -- about five percent of the
world -- go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on
their home ground? How can we do it... send our boys over there to be
slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their
'commonwealth'? They've fooled you so much that you don't know
whether you're coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any
witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his
testimony." That is correct. I don't know from what state you come,
but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If
that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

>
> My Sig was missed
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...
>
> Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ?
> Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did
> you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911
> investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put
> the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon
> Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and
> puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without
> TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did
> you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent
> little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhMcii8smxkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0...
>
> There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian
> courts.
>
> FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but
> only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of
> Non-whites in all parts of the world.
>
> Daily 911 news :http://911b...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l...

Sjouke Burry

7/3/2010 9:06:00 PM

nanothermite911fbibustards wrote:
> Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening
> speech.

A thousand lines of bullshit.

Keith Thompson

7/5/2010 3:00:00 AM

Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> writes:
> nanothermite911fbibustards wrote:
>> Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening
>> speech.
>
> A thousand lines of bullshit.

Your reply makes a thousand and one. (And yes, mine makes a thousand
and two.)

Please don't reply to spammers.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.ne...
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

7/5/2010 1:35:00 PM

In article <lnwrtaiqfb.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> writes:
>> nanothermite911fbibustards wrote:
>>> Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening
>>> speech.
>>
>> A thousand lines of bullshit.
>
>Your reply makes a thousand and one. (And yes, mine makes a thousand
>and two.)
>
>Please don't reply to spammers.

You're the leader. We follow your lead.

--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...


Servizio di avviso nuovi messaggi
Ricevi direttamente nella tua mail i nuovi messaggi per
A toy example of embedding C code in lisp and vice versa

Inserendo la tua e-mail nella casella sotto, riceverai un avviso tramite posta elettronica ogni volta che il motore di ricerca troverà un nuovo messaggio per te

Il servizio è completamente GRATUITO!