Nazism & Marxism Shared Desire to Reshape Human Nature

[The Immortalist]

Hitler was undeniably influenced by the bastardized versions of
Darwinism and genetics that were popular in the early decades of the
twentieth century, and he specifically cited natural selection and the
survival of the fittest in laying out his poisonous doctrine. He
believed in an extreme Social Darwinism in which groups were the unit
of selection and a struggle among groups was necessary for national
strength and vigor. He believed that the groups were constitutionally
distinct races, that their members shared a distinctive biological
makeup, and that they differed from one another in strength, courage,
honesty, intelligence, and civic-mindedness. He wrote that the
extinction of inferior races was part of the wisdom of nature, that
the superior races owed their vitality and virtue to their genetic
purity, and that the superior races were in danger of being degraded
by interbreeding with the inferior ones. He used these beliefs to
justify his war of conquest and his genocide of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
and homosexuals.

The misuse of biology by the Nazis is a reminder that perverted ideas
can have horrifying consequences and that intellectuals have a
responsibility to take reasonable care that their ideas not be misused
for evil ends. But part of that responsibility is not to trivialize
the horror of Nazism by exploiting it for rhetorical clout in academic
catfights. Linking the people you disagree with to Nazism does nothing
for the memory of Hitler's victims or for the effort to prevent other
genocides. It is precisely because these events are so grave that we
have a special responsibility to identify their causes precisely.

...An idea is not false or evil because the Nazis misused it. As the
historian Robert Richards wrote of an alleged connection between
Nazism and evolutionary biology, "If such vague similarities suffice
here, we should all be hus-tlea to the gallows." Indeed, if we
censored ideas that the Nazis abused, we would have to give up far
more than the application of evolution and genetics to human behavior.
We would have to censor the study of evolution and genetics, period.

...though both Nazi and Marxist ideologies led to industrial-scale
killing, their biological and psychological theories were op-posites.
Marxists had no use for the concept of race, were averse to the notion
of genetic inheritance, and were hostile to the very idea of a human
nature rooted in biology. Marx and Engels did not explicitly embrace
the doctrine of the Blank Slate in their writings, but they were
adamant that human nature has no enduring properties. It consists only
in the interactions of groups of people with their material
environments in a historical period, and constantly changes as people
change their environment and are simultaneously changed by it. The
mind therefore has no innate structure but emerges from the
dialectical processes of history and social interaction.

...The new realization that government-sponsored mass murder can come
from an anti-innatist belief system as easily as from an innatist one
upends the postwar understanding that biological approaches to
behavior are uniquely sinister. An accurate appraisal of the cause of
state genocides must look for beliefs common to Nazism and Marxism
that launched them on their parallel trajectories, and for the beliefs
specific to Marxism that led to the unique atrocities committed in its
name. A new wave of historians and philosophers is doing exactly that.

Nazism and Marxism shared a desire to reshape humanity. "The
alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary," wrote Marx; "the will
to create mankind anew" is the core of National Socialism, wrote
Hitler. They also shared a revolutionary idealism and a tyrannical
certainty in pursuit of this dream, with no patience for incremental
reform or adjustments guided by the human consequences of their
policies. This alone was a recipe for disaster. As Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago, "Macbeth's
self-justifications were feeble-and his conscience devoured him. Yes,
even lago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual
strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses.
Because they had no ideology"

The ideological connection between Marxist socialism and National
Socialism is not fanciful. Hitler read Marx carefully while living in
Munich in 1913, and may have picked up from him a fateful postulate
that the two ideologies would share. It is the belief that history is
a preordained succession of conflicts between groups of people and
that improvement in the human condition can come only from the victory
of one group over the others. For the Nazis the groups were races; for
the Marxists they were classes. For the Nazis the conflict was Social
Darwinism; for the Marxists, it was class struggle. For the Nazis the
destined victors were the Aryans; for the Marxists, they were the
proletariat. The ideologies, once implemented, led to atrocities in a
few steps: struggle (often a euphemism for violence) is inevitable and
beneficial; certain groups of people (the non-Aryan races or the
bourgeoisie) are morally inferior; improvements in human welfare
depend on their subjugation or elimination. Aside from supplying a
direct justification for violent conflict, the ideology of intergroup
struggle ignites a nasty feature of human social psychology: the
tendency to divide people into in-groups and out-groups and to treat
the out-groups as less than human. It doesn't matter whether the
groups are thought to be defined by their biology or by their history.
Psychologists have found that they can create instant intergroup
hostility by sorting people on just about any pretext, including the
flip of a coin.

The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/

-----------------

http://www.kimyx.com/images/hitler.JPG
http://www.alba.nu/mansnummer9/Images/hitler.gif
http://giraf.online.kherson.ua/fest/pesh/marx.jpg
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/marx.jpg
http://www.akademie-verlag.de/journals/2249/kontrov/marx-gr.gif

[Immortalist]

"The Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9353ae8c.04062...@posting.google.com...

> ...though both Nazi and Marxist ideologies led to industrial-scale
> killing, their biological and psychological theories were op-posites.
> Marxists had no use for the concept of race, were averse to the notion
> of genetic inheritance, and were hostile to the very idea of a human
> nature rooted in biology. Marx and Engels did not explicitly embrace
> the doctrine of the Blank Slate in their writings, but they were
> adamant that human nature has no enduring properties. It consists only
> in the interactions of groups of people with their material
> environments in a historical period, and constantly changes as people
> change their environment and are simultaneously changed by it. The
> mind therefore has no innate structure but emerges from the
> dialectical processes of history and social interaction.
>

...As Marx put it:

All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.

Circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and
intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines
their consciousness.

In a foreshadowing of Durkheim's and Kroeber's insistence that individual human
minds are not worthy of attention, Marx wrote:

Man is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world. Man is the world of
men, the State and Society. The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in
each particular individual. The real nature of man is the totality of social
relations.

Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of
economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class
interests.

[Death] seems to be a harsh victory of the species over the particular individual
and to contradict their unity. But the particular individual is only a particular
species-being, and as such mortal.

Marx's twentieth-century followers did embrace the Blank Slate, or at least the
related metaphor of malleable material. Lenin endorsed Nikolai Bukharin's ideal
of "the manufacturing of Communist man out of the human material of the
capitalist age." Lenin's admirer Maxim Gorky wrote, "The working classes are to
Lenin what minerals are to the metallurgist" and "Human raw material is
immeasurably more difficult to work with than wood" (the latter while admiring a
canal built by slave labor). We come across the metaphor of the blank slate in
the writings of a man who may have been responsible for sixty-five million
deaths:

A blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful
words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted
on it.
--Mao Zedong

And we find it in a saying of a political movement that killed a quarter of its
countrymen:

Only the newborn baby is spotless.
--Khmer Rouge slogan

> The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
> Steven Pinker
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/
>
> -----------------
>

1. "Room service? Send up a larger room."
Groucho Marx

2. "I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception."
Groucho Marx

3. "A man's only as old as the woman he feels."
Groucho Marx

4. "I've worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty."
Groucho Marx

5. "A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere."
Groucho Marx

6. "Either the man is dead, or my watch has stopped."
Groucho Marx

7. "She got her looks from her father. He's a plastic surgeon."
Groucho Marx

8. "I could dance till the cows come home. On second thought, I'd rather dance
with the cows till you come home."
Groucho Marx

9. "I chased a girl for two years only to discover that her tastes were exactly
like mine: We were both crazy about girls."
Groucho Marx

10. "I'm not feeling very well, I need a doctor immediately. Ring the nearest
golf course."
Groucho Marx

11. "Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot."
Groucho Marx

12. "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas
I'll never know."
Groucho Marx

13. "If I held you any closer I would be on the other side of you."
Groucho Marx

14. "I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury."
Groucho Marx

15. "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"
Groucho Marx

16. "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted."
Groucho Marx

17. "A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of five."
Groucho Marx

18. "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
Groucho Marx

19. "Behind every successful man is a woman, behind her is his wife."
Groucho Marx

20. "Marry me and I'll never look at another horse!"
Groucho Marx

21. "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke."
Groucho Marx

22. "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too
dark to read."
Groucho Marx

23. "Why was I with her? She reminds me of you. In fact, she reminds me more of
you than you do!"
Groucho Marx

24. "Women should be obscene and not heard."
Groucho Marx

25. "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."
Groucho Marx

26. "I must confess, I was born at a very early age."
Groucho Marx

27. "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
Groucho Marx

28. "I wish to be cremated. One tenth of my ashes shall be given to my agent, as
written in our contract."
Groucho Marx

29. "My favourite poem is the one that starts 'Thirty days hath September'
because it actually tells you something."
Groucho Marx

30. "I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception."
Groucho Marx

http://images.google.com/images?q=Groucho+Marx
http://images.google.com/images?q=Karl+Marx

[Jade]

On 27 Jun 2004 13:21:11 -0700, reanima...@yahoo.com (The
Immortalist) wrote:

>Hitler was undeniably influenced by the bastardized versions of
>Darwinism and genetics that were popular in the early decades of the
>twentieth century, and he specifically cited natural selection and the
>survival of the fittest in laying out his poisonous doctrine.

This speech delivered by Dr. Walter Grob, the head of the Nazi Party's
Office of Racial Policy. He was speaking to a women's meeting at the
Gau Party Rally in Cologne on 13 October 1934. After this speech I
will make my comment on it.
My Dear German Women and Girls!
When Germans come together today to discuss the things that concern us
both as individuals and as a nation, it is a solemn occasion, whether
we wish it to be or not. During the political struggles of the past,
we could speak of party programs or of civilization without any
involvement of our soul.
Now we have forgotten how to approach an issue merely with our
understanding, merely with our mouth, merely with our heart. We have
become whole people once again. When we speak with others, we do so
with our full being.
That is what made the movement strong, and great, and powerful from
its first days. It is also that which the enemy on this side of the
border and the other cannot understand, and which it hates with deadly
strength. As this great and beautiful people's movement began, so too
began a hard and bitter struggle between enemy and German forces,
between an old world that is really long dead and buried, and the new
world that is struggling to reach the light through us. This struggle
has been going on in people's hearts and souls for years, and is
nowhere near its end. The world finds it difficult to understand that
which is at the center of our endeavors:
the value of blood and race.
Our enemies first laughed in pity, then in hatred as we spoke of it.
Let us speak of what we National Socialists mean by that so that it
will become clear why the German woman may be even more concerned
about these matters than the man, his state, and his fighting
organization can be.
There was a time in the past when we were untrue, untrue in the
deepest sense. We were untrue not to other people, or parties, or
states, or kings, but untrue to something far greater, untrue to the
laws of life. As long as the world exists, as long as life grows,
flourishes and perishes, so long will this life have the urge to live
on into the future and win new territory. Whether plant or animal or
man-as we, or I, or you:
wherever there is life, it has the longing to bring forth new life.
It should be unnecessary to speak of such things. We speak of them
only because for a few decades a crazy era ignored, blasphemed and
mocked these greatest, most beautiful and purest dreams of life. This
was an age that made the idol of money supreme and said: "The world
should be governed not be what serves life, rather by what some fool
of an accountant decides is best." We know the results. The great laws
of life were evaluated according to money sacks and checkbooks. When
we think back on our parents, grandparents and great grandparents,
there were many children in the house. It may have been crowded and
hard financially, but we were happy, perhaps because there were so
many of us in so large a family. But the time came when people said:
"As man or woman, as parents or teachers of leaders, you have the duty
to show the people the way to a better future." That better future,
people thought, could only be a richer future, a future in which the
individual had more money. And when they were asked where this money
would come from, a false teaching arose in the last century: "The
fewer people there are, the more an individual child can inherit from
his parents." He who loves his children and wishes a prosperous future
for his nation should therefore see to it that Germany's population is
small, and that only a few children continue the family after he is
gone. That was the terrible teaching of birth control, which Marxism
preached and the bourgeois followed. No one dared stand against it.
That was the doctrine that made us what we are today:
a dying people,
in which fewer children are born each year, in which today more people
die each year than are born. This all was supposed to lead to a happy
future. It understood happiness only in terms of possessions. It was
therefore inherently false. But even in its own terms it was false,
for it forgot something:
When a people begins to die, when a people no longer obeys the laws of
life, when a people values money more than its existence and
posterity, this people is on the path to disaster, both historically
and politically. Within a few decades it will be dead, oppressed by
other peoples who are stronger, closer to life, and who follow life's
laws better than we.
If present trends continue, by the end of the century Germany will be
a nation with only 40-50 million inhabitants,
and we know that on our borders other peoples are growing quickly and
strongly. Sooner or later, these other peoples will come in conflict
with a shrinking and dying German people, and the result of the
supposed doctrine of happiness will be a hard and bitter
national death for our children.
Those who believed that they can give their children a happy and
peaceful future by reducing the number of children err deeply. They
give the children only the promise of a hard and bitter struggle for
Germany's existence as a state and as an idea.
Today when we work to show people that the ideas of yesterday are
false, that the state and nation cannot do without the family, that
the family cannot exist without children, and when we not only provide
economic support to make it easier to begin families and have
children, but also tell people again and again of the sanctity of life
and the necessity of continuing our people into the future, our
enemies on both sides of the border suddenly have insults and hateful
things to say about us. They wish to disturb our work. Suddenly there
are voices saying: "National Socialism's doctrines are inhumane and
barbaric. National Socialism's views on children turn people into
breeding animals. When it says
that it is the duty of men and women to continue the eternal chain of
life, a chain that begins in the distant past and continues into the
future, a chain of which we are only a link leading into the distant
future,
our enemies on both sides of the border claim: "You reject the dignity
and value of humanity. National Socialism holds that men and women
have no value other than that of breeding cattle." It is a shame that
we have to respond to such words, but it is necessary because our
enemies have always tried to persuade women to oppose us, even though
what we say is rooted in the souls of the men and women we speak to.
This is our response: "You are mistaken in accusing us of thinking
that the only purpose of humanity is to continue the species by
passing on our blood to future generations. We know the other values.
We support them and find wherever we can those values that the
individual shows in his work and selfless service. We know well enough
that
each person lives a double life. The first is the one he lives between
birth and death. We are to do as much as we can to make this life
rich, to accomplish that which is good and beautiful, to use our
strengths and gifts for others. That is the duty of the individual.
But as a person you are something more:
You are a member of the chain of life, a drop in the great bloodstream
of your people.
There too you have duties and obligations before the eternity of the
nation. You have the duty to pass on what you received from your
parents and ancestors. I do not believe that such behavior, which
obeys both the laws of reason and of life, is barbaric, hateful or
inhumane. I believe instead that the barbarism is to be found in the
years we have left behind us, when any dirty lout could besmirch the
most valuable, holy life of a man or women in their families, or drag
children through the filth, without anyone defending their culture
against such an attack.
I believe that when we tell people once more of the great value of
blood, and remind them that they have duties not only for the 60-year
span in which they work and serve, but also to the millennia of the
past from which we come and to the millennia of the future to which we
are heading, then we are giving them higher values than those of
yesterday. Let me say also, however, that it is wrong if someone
thinks that only those who found families and bear children are
valuable to our state. We know that is not so. We know there are
reasons why some people leave their people's flow of blood. We know
that some are denied what the nation places great value on. We do not
ignore them or think ourselves their betters. We only say this: "My
friend, you and I must do our duty to our people, and when we cannot
fulfill it in one way, then we must do what we can with even greater
energy and devotion.
When you do your duty, you are one of us,
we extend our hand to you, we honor your humanity and your service for
Germany. Let us work together so that in the future, as many people as
possible will be able to serve the nation in both ways.
That is a piece of the thinking of blood and race that National
Socialism has taught us. And there is another aspect. When we see
people today, we can recognize that we are not all alike. There are
differences in value;
each person does not have the same value as everyone else.
In the past, people believed that these differences were superficial,
the result of the environment in which one grew up. People believed
that what became of a person depended primarily on the house he grew
up in or in his social environment, or the class he came from. They
believed that a person born in a slum, surrounded by shadows, troubles
and poverty, a child lacking in love and affection, could only become
a second-class human being, a physically and psychologically ill
member of the society, someone failed by the society and the state.
One thought that a child growing up in such slum inevitably became
sick, or even criminal. It was because he grew up in such a poor
environment. The Marxists claimed that if every child in Germany grew
up in an environment that gave him all he needed, he would inevitably
become a useful, decent, upright, proud and honest adult. After a few
years or decades, the entire German people would consist of such
decent and useful people. In the past people believed the environment
was responsible even when a person failed miserably.
We recall the days of delirium, when millions of unemployed had been
thrown on the street by a sick political and economic system, made
superfluous. A single person pried the tracks apart and derailed a
train in the middle of the night. Within a minute he murdered 30
innocent people who had never done anything to him, and stole their
money. And what did the world of yesterday say? "He can't help
himself. He is a victim of circumstances. He has Beethoven's hands and
an artistic temperament. We need not put him on the gallows or in
prison to protect us and our children. No, this poor Schlesinger is
only sick because of his environment. Put him in a modern sanitarium,
give him what he needs: radio, a library, a smoking salon, a language
teacher, a pastor, a newspaper room, give him everything he needs to
put him in touch with better things. In a few years, this mass
murderer of 30 people will leave as an ideal human being, so pure and
innocent that one can put him in charge of a kindergarten." That's
what people thought in the past.
Today that seems a bad joke to us, a crazy fantasy, but a few years
ago it was government policy in Germany. Those who did well under such
policies and have joined to fight us think that they can accuse our
doctrines of blood and race as barbaric.
Why do we see things differently? Because we have learned something:
In the end, you are not as important and significant as you thought
yesterday;
your strength and abilities are not as great as you believed during
the liberal era. Oh yes, it was a lovely dream to say: "I will do with
my life what I want, and if I happen to be a teacher, I will teach
what I want, and do what I enjoy, and what I think right." Well, that
was your idea of the environment.
We are a bit more modest, a bit more humble before the laws of fate.
We have learned that what I can do for myself or what you can do for
yourself, or what we can all do to each other, is not as important, or
as deep, as that which a greater power has already done to us. It is
that power that even before our birth gave us a part of our nature,
and laid out our path for us in the world. Here are joined two things:
the knowledge of modern science and the sensitivity and understanding
of a humble person. Suddenly we see that:
What you are, what I am and what I can be in my life is in part
predetermined by that which I have inherited.
If my inheritance is good and strong, and if I am true to it and
develop what is within me, my life will be successful, and perhaps of
benefit and joy to others. If such an inheritance is denied me, or if
for some inexplicable reason fate has given me other, perhaps weak,
perhaps even bad traits, I can struggle against them for my entire
life, and will still not be able to rid myself of that which slumbers
in me because of the actions of a higher power.
We see then that a good part of a people's history is determined by
what it has inherited. If we ask what sorts of physical or
intellectual traits these may be, or what groups there are, we will
see that each people has three groups. The first is a large group of
people with average gifts, the most of us who are able to deal with
the normal problems life presents us with. Next there is a very small
group. This group has received a better inheritance than most of us,
not because of any particular virtue on its part, but simply because
of fate. The leaders of humanity, those who build states, lead people,
or touch the soul, come from this group. And there is a third small
group with particular traits, also not their fault: those who are sick
or genetically defective. They are not up to the challenges of life,
and need outside help to survive.
As humanity of a nation go through the centuries, the decisive fact is
which of these three groups is the strongest. One might say: "That is
not a question at all. The strongest will win, the group from which
the leaders come. This superior group has to be the strongest in the
end, it must gradually have its way." Well, that is how things would
be without people, if people with their little brains did not believe
that they could change the laws of life given to the world by heaven.
Man has interfered in these matters. He has tried to change the laws
of struggle and existence and selection. Those were ancient laws of
life, to which men too were subject:
That which cannot meet the challenges dies.
That is hard, perhaps, but it is also the way that nature makes life
stronger and better. Man has tried more and more to abolish these
laws. He has kept life going by using artificial means in cases where,
left to itself, it would have ended. He used all his understanding,
love and sympathy to keep a person alive, even when it is no joy, but
only a burden and misery. We now keep thousands, even tens of
thousands of unhappy creatures alive through artificial means, those
to whom life itself has denied the right to life. But keeping them
alive was not itself the problem. What is worse is that they were
given the opportunity to pass on their unfortunate physical and mental
characteristics. That was the worst that happened: we took the
physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically defective criminals
and not only kept them alive and cared for them-that is our duty as
human beings, which we certainly do not want to ignore in the future
either-and gave them the ability to have children with the same
deficiencies, thus doubling or multiplying their misery. The German
people do not know the extent of this misery, it does not know the
depressing spirit of the homes where thousands of cripples live their
lives only by being fed and cared for, poor creatures who are worse
than any animal. The animal at least is as it should be. These poor
creatures are distortions of life, no joy either to themselves or
others. They are a burden throughout their miserable existences, but
thanks to the selfless care and devotion of those who care for them
may live 60, 70 or 80 years. The German people do not realize the
enormous sums that have been spent for decades, money that is taken
from those who are healthy, who could do something useful, but cannot
because the money is lacking.
There was a winter in which children in Bavaria did not even have
wooden shoes to wear as they walked through the snow on their way to
school. They had to walk for hours bare-footed. At the same time, the
government made sure that those unfortunate souls in a large
institution had fresh bananas twice a week so that they got the
necessary vitamins. But these vitamins could not give them joy or
strength or health. But they were thus denied to those somewhere in
the Bavarian forest, or in the Ruhr, or in a poor fishing village on
the Frisian coast, where they could have reduced the poverty and need
in some worker's house. At the same time there was a case where
a single mentally ill Negro of English citizenship lived for 16 years
in an institution in Berlin, costing 26,000 Marks.
26,000 Marks were thrown away on a life that had no meaning. 26,000
Marks that could have been used to prepare a dozen strong, healthy and
gifted children for life and a job.
But I am not speaking of this as a kind of theft. Money is not an end
in itself. Rather, we have here committed a theft of spirit and soul,
because we tried to persuade the nation and humanity that our own
greatness could come from sacrificing for the worst and most helpless.
In the end, we went so far as
to put the sick and the dying before the young, strong, healthy and
promising.
That is against nature and life. A nation going this way is heading
for the abyss. We went so far as to preach year after year to healthy
families that they should have no children, or at most one, else they
sinned against the nation and the spirit of this enlightened age. But
if some imbecile of a whore and a genetically ill criminal had
children, they were not only a financial burden for their entire
lives, but also took the labor of people who our society gave nothing
better to do than to change these poor creatures three times a day and
feed them. That is a perversion of everything great and healthy, and
is a sin against life and the spirit of creation.
With full knowledge of our duties as human beings and the requirements
of pity, we made the decision not to allow such miserable creatures to
pass on their misery to the next generation, multiplied perhaps two or
three or more times. That is a major accomplishment, for which our
children and their children will one day thank us.
I know that there are those who will say: "You are meddling in matters
that are not your concern. You are interfering in an area outside
human control. Life and death are not in the hands of man, but in
those of a higher power. If God wants sick and genetically ill people
to be born, you may not interfere through laws, operations, or any
other measures with God's will. And if you do so-and you have with
your Law to Prevent Inherited Illness-then you are acting against the
will of God, and you are heretics."
This is our answer: "My friend, you are wrong. It is true that we are
subject to a higher power. We humans may never interfere with the
great laws of the Creator. But you are wrong. See the laws the Creator
has established for his world and your life. The great law is that
life must be able to preserve itself, and that if it cannot, it will
collapse. It is the hard, brutal law of the struggle for existence and
of selection and extinction. It was the law we saw day by day, hour by
hour, under all the clouds of heaven and all the stars of the sky, in
which life seemed to find a senseless death, whether plant or animal
or person, whether in distant Africa or near us.
That which cannot meet the challenges of life dies, no matter how much
pain it causes,
and even if your small understanding or mind cannot comprehend it,
these are the great laws of life and the world that God himself gave
us. These are the laws, my German friend, that in our crazy fantasies
we broke in the past."
With overweening human pride and false pity, we broke the great law
and kept those alive who under the laws of God would long since have
perished.
Today we are once more following these old laws, using humane methods,
for they follow a more hard and brutal course in nature according to
God's will. We are doing nothing more than reestablishing the laws of
creation, and bowing to the heavenly order. We are thus showing piety
and true humility-you are the heretics.
This applies as well to the third and last principle of our racial
thinking. This third and last principle is that the people on this
world, in America, Africa or China, are different both in body and
soul. They are not equal, as yesterday's lie had it.
People are different.
They not only speak different languages and look different: no, they
are different in the depths of their hearts and natures, and in their
abilities for good and evil. In the past people believed that these
differences were accidental, the result of climate or civilization,
and that one could overcome these differences and create a unified man
in a unified state in which all would be equally happy. We have
learned that such ideas are false. We have learned that the
differences between the major blood groups of the world, between the
major races, are not the result of human action, but of the laws of
Creation. We have learned that the lines between blood and blood, race
and race, are also the lines between soul and soul and spirit and
spirit. We have learned that the opposite of the old phrase "What God
has brought together, let no man put asunder" is also true. We have
learned:
What God has separated, man should not bring together.
Heaven thought it good not to have only one type of people on the
earth, but different kinds, various racially-bound peoples. That is a
part of Creation. We bow before this truth and respect the borders.
That means that the foundation of our separation of the races is not a
matter of politics or economics, rather it rests on a higher level, to
which we in the end are responsible.
In our Reich, we are separating that which belongs to us, because it
is blood of our blood, from that which does not belong to us, because
it is foreign. We are doing that which is right not only for the
moment, but for eternity.
Believe me, my dear German fellow citizens, it is not true, as some
say, that this doctrine is a sign of arrogance or superiority or
boasting. We do not think ourselves better than the other races on the
earth. No, we do not think ourselves better, nor do we believe that
others are worse than we are. We insist only on one thing-a law
established by the Creator himself:
Man differs from man and race from race in this world.
The others may not be better or worse, but they are different than we
are, and because they are different than we are, there is a kind of
wall between us that is part of the laws of life. That is the core of
National Socialism's racial thinking. Our goal is not to insult
others, to say: "What a great guy I am!" Rather, we hold to the humble
recognition that each healthy piece of life has its corner of the
world, and its special tasks. This is just as true of humans as it is
of plants and animals in all their multiplicity. We know that one type
is no more valuable than another. But we also know that each variety
of life has a right to existence only as long as it keeps itself pure
and strong. Only when a tree bears the proper fruit does it have a
right to live. Otherwise it will be cut down and destroyed. We do not
know why things are the way they are, and it would be foolish to ask
the reason. That is how things are. Our task is to humbly accept the
laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that we
are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos. That is not
because of our virtues, nor it is our fault, nor was it our will. It
was fate that came from above. We have no choice but to accept this
fate and to develop the abilities that fate has given us according to
necessity and law.
Others may develop in their own way, in their own land. We must listen
to the depths of our own people, to draw from blood and inheritance
the strength we need to build our homeland. A higher power will take
care of the life beyond.
I believe, my dear German fellow citizens, that everyone who is of our
spirit will grant the correctness of our thinking about blood and
race, and will say: "I see now that you are not only on the right
path, but are honest and in the deepest sense true to demands that are
greater than the laws of man."
Let us then together follow the path to a new worldview. Let us go the
path of blood and race, which does not ignore faith and knowledge and
a sense of higher powers. Let us go this path, not a path of matter,
superstition and heresy, rather a path of deep humility and piety
before the laws of God. Let us go along this path together and listen
to the deepest depths where blood and soul rule. Let us draw from
there the strength to build the state, and even more important the
Reich. It will be a Reich not only of politics, a Reich of
organization, or the economy, but a Reich of people. Germany today has
the fortune to find a new way, led by a great Fuehrer. German women
today have the good fortune to see a strong and loyal woman at their
head. Let us together go forward, hand in hand, as befits comrades
building the future, and let us join the strength of men and women,
rooted deep in their blood, to build what the world has never before
seen:
The holy Reich of the German soul.
Heil!

My comment:

The part about the unfit dying may make some people uneasy. It makes
me uneasy also. But he did say:

"we took the physically weak, the mentally ill, the genetically
defective criminals and not only kept them alive and cared for
them-that is our duty as human beings, which we certainly do not want
to ignore in the future either"

We should certainly take care of them. That will not be a problem.
We will save billions of dollars when we stop sending this money to
the Jews country every year.

We should also sterilize them. We will care for them and many work
hours will be done to provide for them, and all we ask in return is
for them not to pass their misfortune onto more generations. We are
not asking to much at all.

It was a great speech. It has policies that would make a nation
unimaginably great. The future would be a heaven on earth. Heil
Hitler.

> He
>believed in an extreme Social Darwinism in which groups were the unit
>of selection and a struggle among groups was necessary for national
>strength and vigor. He believed that the groups were constitutionally
>distinct races, that their members shared a distinctive biological
>makeup, and that they differed from one another in strength, courage,
>honesty, intelligence, and civic-mindedness. He wrote that the
>extinction of inferior races was part of the wisdom of nature, that
>the superior races owed their vitality and virtue to their genetic
>purity, and that the superior races were in danger of being degraded
>by interbreeding with the inferior ones. He used these beliefs to
>justify his war of conquest and his genocide of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
>and homosexuals.

Hitler was against the Jews mainly because the Jews controlled the
media and the Jews were behind Communism. Here are some quotes from
Mein Kampf:

"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
moment
I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
literature and
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
needed
only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
highly
lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
questions.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
being
infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,
the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
far
that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
filth
directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
ought
to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existance ten
thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers
in
poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could
not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.
"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people?
"I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
result
of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I
had
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
artistic
tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
people
who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not
be
gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to
examine my
favorite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."



"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."

>
>The misuse of biology by the Nazis is a reminder that perverted ideas
>can have horrifying consequences and that intellectuals have a
>responsibility to take reasonable care that their ideas not be misused
>for evil ends. But part of that responsibility is not to trivialize
>the horror of Nazism by exploiting it for rhetorical clout in academic

"I know you expect no deep expression of feelings, for feelings cannot
be clothed in words. But please imagine this: jobless, without any
money. For two years! For four years! For six years! A desperate
woman, broken in body and soul, with three young children.
How often did I see their hungry eyes looking toward me with vain
expectation. Nothing is more tortuous than such looks from children.
My faith in him, the fanatical fighter, was what kept me and mine from
what lured us - and anyone else in our situation - Suicide!
And today?
A happy mother who is always singing with her children. No one can see
in her the miserable, desperate woman she once was. Instead of three
unhappy hollow-cheeked children, four little devils making noise far
and wide.
Look at them! There may be families with better behaved children, but
none with children as cheerful and happy! That is what the Führer
means to me and mine.
I turned my back very early to a foreign worldview because it left my
whole life meaningless. The Führer gave me his worldview a firm place
to stand, for it is nothing but a knowledge of the eternal laws that
are behind the universe.
His deeds are a joyful fulfillment of these laws. His successes do not
seem to me, as one hears all too often, the result of good luck,
rather as the natural consequences of his nature. This faith, no, this
certainty, enables me to understand the Führer when his actions would
otherwise require blind confidence.
Such obvious confidence is the most wonderful feeling that I can
imagine. Admiration? Recognition? Thanks? They are nothing when
compared to the full understanding of a people of 80 million for the
mission of its Führer. That alone would be crowning of his sacrificial
struggle.
This fulfillment of this wish is my prayer for the Führer."
Fred. Ch., Poppelau

"The Führer is everything to us, he is our faith, secirity and hope.
As a bearer of the blood medal, I have always believed in this man,
who guided and inspired us, who led us in the fight for Germany’s
greatness. We, me, my wife and our seven children, believe only in
him, Adolf Hitler. Is there a belief more understandable, more real,
more natural than this?
Has the Führer not done everything for us that one could do for the
good of a family? Did he not give me a job and the ability to decently
feed and clothe my family? Has he not given my children a future that
no other country could so easily give?
The Führer is with us in every situation! Look, sometimes the world is
hard on a family. There are difficult situations that cannot be
overcome. In just such hours I go to my living room, and there is a
picture of my Führer.
I look Adolf Hitler in the face and remember his great struggle, his
great will and accomplishments, and my miserable mood is gone and
thinking of the Führer gives me new strength.
How can I fail when I see the greatness in and around Adolf Hitler?
My children know the Führer as the man who rules all, arranges all,
who built their world. The Führer is the embodiment of what people had
such difficulty describing to us children before. But this is the
enormous difference: The Führer moves among the people so that one can
celebrate him, so that our love for him is rewarded through his ever
new deeds.
The Führer is hope for us in every situation. Look, my dear comrade,
according to the Führer’s own words, raising seven children is a great
responsibility to the state and a holy duty.
To form these young souls, to raise them to be decent adults, is such
a wonderful task only because the Führer has given us the sure
foundations that are necessary. He is our hope, for only through his
generous measures are we with many children also able to "lead an
decent life," as anyone should be able to do. He protects our strength
through the NSV, through subventions for children, through the support
the state gives women and children, through the high status he gave
children.
Once people mocked those with many children. Today people honor them.
Now my wife and I have become respected members of the state. That is
why we have such hope for the future of our children, for the Führer
has provided all that is necessary for them so that they too will be
able to establish families and contribute to the security and
protection of the great Fatherland.
Is it not wonderful to know what a wonderful future awaits our
children. One cannot but remember our own youth during the postwar
period, during the inflation, the days of hunger and so much that had
terrible effects on our youth and development.
Our children have no fears of such things, for they know that our
Führer plans everything, foresees everything, and prepares the best
for us.
Is is not obvious why the Führer means everything to us?"
Toni Dominik Sch., Unterammergau

"I can still remember the first time I saw and heard the Führer in
1920 in the Zirkus Krone in Munich. This was the introduction: "Adolf
Hitler will speak!" A somewhat slight young man stood before me, with
a short coat, soft collar and crumpled tie, poorly clothed. I was
curious to hear what this man had to say to me.
As I heard his voice, the passion of his words (something unheard of
at the time), the growing tension of his words, it became clear to me:
This man or no one! To this day, this inner feeling has not left me.
The greatness of this man, his deeds, his historic successes seem
enormous to me. But yet I always see him as a man of the people, one
of us in my mind’s eye. It fills me with pride that Providence choice
one of our brothers to fulfill German history.
I honor the great figures of German history, but my feelings for the
Führer are different. I believe that love is the best word to describe
them.
One of us, who came from the people, has done amazing deeds, yet
remained the same from the first day I saw him until today.
I admire this man so much that I would defend him even if he were in
the wrong, but he cannot be wrong since he is truth and justice
themselves."
Gr. F., Munich

>catfights. Linking the people you disagree with to Nazism does nothing
>for the memory of Hitler's victims or for the effort to prevent other
>genocides. It is precisely because these events are so grave that we

During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponants and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.

Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:

"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"

The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.

Here is part of the Leuchter Report:

"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are
set out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that
the few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"

Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas
chamber" which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually
built by the allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:

Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...

"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V
are in their demolished state as they were left."

Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...

"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.

"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it
would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully admit
that
it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."

They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at
Auschwitz was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no
physical evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of
people who died from gas have been found. The Communists were the
first to enter the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists
didn't blow up the buildings? Then they could claim that these
demolished buildings used to be gas chambers.

But then the believers will say the Gemans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:

"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992],
the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess
by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating
what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.

In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death,
Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three days, he
and
Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture Hoess into
making a
"coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions of Death, p. 237],
he
and the other interrogators put the boots to Hoess the moment he was
captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face four times to get
Höess to
reveal his true identity.

<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the
arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order
signed by Höss.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables,
where it
seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless
you want to take back a corpse."

A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where
the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat.
Höss
tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered
in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."

For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification:
"I
took my orders frorn Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are
a soldier and we had to obey orders."

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The
snow was
swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to
walk
completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>

An article in the Britsh newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with
a Nazi war criminal -- We kept him awake until he confessed," October
17,
1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case of Rudolf
Hoess
included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:

<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us
when
he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during
the
war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail
cell in
the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed
with
Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for
interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed
with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help
break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out
for
exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the
bitter
cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke
down
and made a full confession to the authorities.
</quote>

The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped,
as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral deposition
Hoess
made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it had been
extracted
from him by torture...


Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.

The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.

The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions
of Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:

Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:

"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)

Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man
and His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941,
translated by Charles Malamuth.

In this book he told who the principle members of the October
Central Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik
Party during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:

"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons
elected by secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the
exception of the four who had recieved the largest number of votes.
Lenin--133 out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131,
Trotzky--131."

Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three
were known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London
Jewish Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.

David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:

"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent
of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other
country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a
world-wide revolution."

The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:

"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."

In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:

Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.

Andrew Roth, a Jew.

Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.

John Service, a gentile.

Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown

Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.

In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.

The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was
Gerhart Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist
Party in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.

In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film
writers of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of
Congress and sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of
the ten were communist party members and the other four were
flagrantly pro-communist.

One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis
and the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National
Secretariat of the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two
gentiles, three nationality unknown.

Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.

Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.

"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated
in the heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were
neither Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing
Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl
Marx, though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
thoughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."

"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two
men who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."

The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and
published by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes
Stalin in an interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Stalin said:

"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."

The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:

State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."

State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."

From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia
on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type"
type."

A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government:
"...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.

The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it
is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of
things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish
dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920

"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)

Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by
Stalin
himself:

"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism,
as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige
of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).

Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:

"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."

Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.

Here is something the National Socialists wrote:

"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."

>have a special responsibility to identify their causes precisely.
>
>...An idea is not false or evil because the Nazis misused it. As the
>historian Robert Richards wrote of an alleged connection between
>Nazism and evolutionary biology, "If such vague similarities suffice
>here, we should all be hus-tlea to the gallows." Indeed, if we
>censored ideas that the Nazis abused, we would have to give up far
>more than the application of evolution and genetics to human behavior.
>We would have to censor the study of evolution and genetics, period.
>
>...though both Nazi and Marxist ideologies led to industrial-scale
>killing,

by Theodore J. O'Keefe

Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
the Holocaust
story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes US troops
discovered
when they entered German concentration camps at the close of World War
II.

At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dora, Mauthausen, and other work and detention
camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead and dying
inmates,
emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them hair-raising stories of
torture and
slaughter, and backed up their claims by showing the GIs crematory
ovens, alleged
execution gas chambers, supposed implements of torture, and even
shrunken
heads and lampshades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin
flayed
from dead inmates.

US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered
the
atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the Allied
propaganda
directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to "document" what the
GIs had found
in the camps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to see
the harrowing
evidence, while the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the
scenes
for posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones
of horror,
but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown, and
Dachau and
Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American
populace as
names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history of this
planet.

For Americans, what was "discovered" at the camps -- the dead and the
diseased,
the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of torture and
terror -- became the
basis not simply of a transitory propaganda campaign but of the
conviction that,
yes, it was true: the Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most
of them in
lethal gas chambers.

What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory
viewing for
the vanquished populace of Germany, to "re-educate" the German people
by
destroying their national pride and their will to a united,
independent national state,
imposing in their place overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and
political
impotence. And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Nuremberg
Tribunal
incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were
told about
Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the
Holocaust
could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most
authenticated, one of
the most proven historical episodes in the human record.

A Different Reality

But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the
camps, American
authorities were aware that the real story of the camps was quite
different from the
one in which they were coaching military public information
officers, government
spokesmen, politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.

When American and British forces overran western and central Germany
in the
spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with
discovering and
securing any evidence of German war crimes.

Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic
pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate
General's
Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson
performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps,
examining
on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim work at Dachau, he
was
questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors.

Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What
we've
heard is that six million Jews were exterminated.Part of that is a
hoax." And what
part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his
knowledge he
"was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European
Theater" of Allied
military operations, confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas
uncovered."

Typhus, Not Poison Gas

If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau,
Buchenwald and
Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or deliberately
starved? The
answers to these questions are known as well.

As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief
cause of death
at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease, above all typhus,
an old and
terrible scourge of mankind that until recently flourished in places
where
populations were crowded together in circumstances where public health
measures
were unknown or had broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded
internment camps in Germany at war's end, where, despite such measures
as
systematic delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the
dead, the virtual
collapse of Germany's food, transport, and public health systems led
to
catastrophe.

Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and
mortality in
the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a
professor of
preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School
of Public
Health, who was with US forces in Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon
reported in
1948 that "The outbreaks in concentration camps and prisons made up
the great
bulk of typhus infection encountered in Germany." Dr. Gordon
summarized the
causes for the outbreaks as follows:

Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an
astounding sight, a
mixture of humanity travelling this way and that, homeless, often
hungry and
carrying typhus with them ...Germany was in chaos. The destruction of
whole cities
and the path left by advancing armies produced a disruption of living
conditions
contributing to the spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade,
public utilities
were seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor,
housing was
inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere lacking. Still
more
important, a shifting of populations was occurring such as few
countries and few
times have experienced.

Dr. Gordon's findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Barton, today a
psychiatrist
of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with British forces
as a young
medical student in 1945. Barton, who volunteered to care for the
diseased
survivors, testified under sworn oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985
that
"Thousands of prisoners who died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration
camp
during World War II weren't deliberately starved to death but died
from a rash of
diseases."

Dr. Barton further testified that on entering the camp he had credited
stories of
deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue after
inspecting the well
equipped kitchens and the meticulously maintained ledgers, dating back
to 1942,
of food cooked and dispensed each day.

Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to
the contrary,
no researcher has been able to document a German policy of
extermination
through starvation in the German camps.

No 'Human Skin' Lampshades

What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for
their
tattoos, flayed to make lampshades and handbags, or other artifacts?
What of the
innumerable "torture racks," "meathooks," whipping posts, gallows, and
other tools
of torment and death that are reported to have abounded at every
German camp?
These allegations, and even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet
prosecutors,
found their way into the record at Nuremberg.

The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch,
dubbed
by journalists the "Bitch of Buchenwald," who was reported to have
furnished her
house with objects manufactured from the tanned hides of luckless
inmates.

But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US zone of occupied
Germany,
who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in Washington:
"There is no
convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch] selected inmates for
extermination in
order to secure tattooed skins or that she possessed any articles made
of human
skin." In an interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about
the material
for the infamous lampshades: "Well, it turned out actually that it was
goat flesh. But
at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for
her to have gotten a
fair trial." Ilse Koch hanged herself in a German jail in 1967.

It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre
claims as to Nazi
atrocities. That there were instances of German cruelty, however, is
clear from the
testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a legal investigator attached to the
Reich
Criminal Police, whose statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg
have never
been challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr.
Morgen
informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich
Himmler,
commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German
concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and
corruption on the part of camp personnel.
As he explained in sworn testimony at Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen
investigated 800
such cases, resulting in more than 200 convictions. Punishments
included the death
penalty for the worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt,
commandant of
Lublin (Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse's husband), commandant of
Buchenwald.

While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical
punishment,
such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and it was
required that a
camp physician first certify the good health of the prisoner to be
disciplined, and
then be on hand at the actual beating. After all, throughout most of
the war the
camps were important centers of industrial activity. The good health
and morale of
the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is evidenced
in a January
1943 order issued
by SS General Richard Glücks, chief of the office that supervised the
concentration camps. It held the camp commanders "personally
responsible for
exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical strength of the
detainees."
Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?
US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly
ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the
worst
offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the guards but
the
prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same stripe as those who
populate
US prisons today committed many villainies, particularly when they
held positions
of authority, and fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat
their many
political enemies among the
inmates, eliminated their foes with Stalinist ruthlessness.
Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon W. Fleck and Edward A.
Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances in the camp before its
liberation.
In a detailed report submitted to their superiors, they revealed, in
the words of
Alfred Toombs, their commander, who wrote a preface to the report,
"how the
prisoners themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi
terror."

Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and
Communists as follows:

The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist
Germans, had the
power of life and death over all other inmates. They could sentence
a man or a
group to almost certain death ... The Communist trusties were
directly responsible
for a large part of the brutalities at Buchenwald.

Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military
government
in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an article
published in an
American magazine shortly after the war. Colonel Robinson wrote
succinctly of the
American investigators' findings: "It appeared that the prisoners who
agreed with
the Communists ate; those who didn't starved to death."

Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by
Ellis E.
Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and Detentions
for the
US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of Dachau. Spackman,
later a
professor of history at San Bernardino Valley College in California,
wrote in 1966
that at Dachau "the prisoners were the actual instruments that
inflicted the
barbarities on their fellow prisoners."

'Gas Chambers'

In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel
Edward
J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at
Struthof-Natzweiler in
Alsace. They submitted their findings to their superiors at the
headquarters of the
US 6th Army Group, which subsequently forwarded their report to the US
War
Crimes Division. While, significantly, the full text of their report
has never been
published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of
Holocaust claims, that
the two investigators were careful to characterize equipment exhibited
to them by
French informants as a "so-called lethal gas chamber," and to claim it
was
"allegedly used as a lethal gas chamber." (Emphasis added)

Both the careful phraseology of the Natzweiler report, and its
effective
suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the confusion,
and the blaring
publicity that accompanied official reports of alleged gas chambers at
Dachau. At
first, a US Army photo depicting a GI gazing at a steel door marked
with a skull
and crossbones and the German words for: "Caution! Gas! Mortal danger!
Don't
open!," was identified as showing the murder weapon.

Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in
question was merely
a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and another alleged gas
chamber, this
one cunningly disguised as a shower room, was exhibited to American
congressmen and journalists as the site where thousands breathed their
last. While
there exist numerous reports in the press as to the operation of this
second "gas
chamber," no official report by trained Army investigators has yet
surfaced to
reconcile such problems as the
function of the shower heads: Were they "dummies," or did lethal
cyanide gas
stream through them? (Each theory has appreciable support in
journalistic and
historiographical literature.)

As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps
liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of
propaganda
about "gas chambers," "gas ovens," and the like, but so far not a
single detailed
description of the murder weapon and its function, not a single report
of the kind
that is mandatory for the successful prosecution of any assault or
murder case in
America at that time and today, has come to light.

Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly
decreed that
there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany after all.
(We are now
told that "gassing" and "extermination" camps were located exclusively
in what is
now Poland, in areas captured by the Soviet Red Army and made
off-limits to
western investigators.)

Dr. Martin Broszat of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History,
which is funded by the German government, stated categorically in a
1960 letter to
the German weekly Die Zeit: "Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen
nor in
Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed." Professional "Nazi
hunter"
Simon Wiesenthal stated in 1975 and again in 1993 that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil."

Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and
grieving
world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, is now
described
in the brochure issued to tourists at the modern Dachau "memorial
site" in these
words: "This gas chamber, camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."

The Propaganda Intensifies

More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald
and
other German camps, and trained American investigators established the
facts as
to what had gone on in them, the government in Washington, the
entertainment
media in Hollywood, and the print media in New York continue to churn
out
millions of words and images annually on the horrors of the camps and
the infamy
of the Holocaust. Despite the fact that, with the exception of the
defeated
Confederacy, no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and
devastating defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the
politicians
and bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration
camps
continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers
continue to distort,
through ignorance or malice, the facts about the camps.

Time for the Truth

It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal
the facts about
Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time they let the
American public
know how the inmates died, and how they didn't die. It is time that
the claims of
mass murder by gassing are clarified and investigated in the same
manner as any
other claims of murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups
have enjoyed as
the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it
is time to end
the scapegoating of other groups, including Germans, eastern
Europeans, the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime
leadership of America and Britain, either for their alleged role in
the Holocaust or
their supposed failure to stop it.

Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have
the facts about the
camps, facts they have a right to know, a right that is fundamental to
the exercise
of their authority and their will in the governance of their country.
As citizens and
as taxpayers, Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have
a basic right
and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that
are deemed by
those in positions of power to be significant in determining America's
foreign and
educational policy, as well as its selection of past events to be
memorialized in our
civic life.

Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the
civilized world.
The truth will be decided only by recourse to the facts, in the public
forum: not by
concealing the facts, denying the truth, stonewalling reality. The
truth will out, and it
is time the government of this country, and governments and
international bodies
throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually
transpired in the
German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945, so that we may put
paid to
the lies, without fear or favor, and carry out the work of
reconciliation and renewal that is
and must be the granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples
and of a
peace based on justice.

Summary
The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth
about the
wartime German concentration camps have since been corroborated by
all
subsequent investigators and can be summarized:

1.The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result
of a
German policy of "extermination," but rather the result of epidemics
of typhus and
other disease brought about largely by the effects of Allied aerial
attacks.
2.Stories of Nazi supercriminals and sadists who turned Jews and
others into
handbags and lampshades for their private profit or amusement were
sick lies or
diseased fantasies; indeed, the German authorities punished corruption
and cruelty
on the part of camp commanders and guards.
3.On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as
saints and
martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the truth; indeed,
most of the
brutalities inflicted on camp detainees were the work of their fellow
prisoners, in
contravention of German policy and German orders.
4.The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for
bathing
camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they were used
to murder
Jews or other human beings is a contemptible fabrication. Orthodox
historians and
professional "Nazi-hunters" have quietly dropped claims that inmates
were gassed
at Dachau, Buchenwald and other camps in Germany. They continue,
however, to
keep silent regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as
to evade
an open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz
and the
other camps captured by the Soviets.

Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659

Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on October 24, 1933

"Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German
nation."

>It doesn't matter whether the
>groups are thought to be defined by their biology or by their history.
>Psychologists have found that they can create instant intergroup
>hostility by sorting people on just about any pretext, including the
>flip of a coin.
>
>The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
>Steven Pinker

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:fcOdnVPEAMq...@comcast.com...
...

>
> 21. "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke."
> Groucho Marx

No: http://glenavalon.com/thebetrothed.html

T

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:fcOdnVPEAMq...@comcast.com...

Is there something callede "headlinerism"? If so, this is what Pinker is
guilty of here.
First of all, Marx wrote economic theory, not psychology. He also wrote
rather extensively - two vaguely anthropology-flavoured lines from here or
there do not even begin to hint at what Marx was about. There is nothing in
Marx to commit anyone to favour any blank slate explanation of the human
mind today, except to explain those who disagree.

T

[Tim]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:QdSDc.553$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...

Immortalist is renowned for cutting and pasting the results of his journeys
around google. It's widely accepted that he neither reads nor understands
what he copies and pastes.

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:QdSDc.553$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...
>

The ideology of group-against-group struggle explains the similar outcomes of
Marxism and Nazism. The ideology of the Blank Slate helps explain some of the
features that were unique to the Marxist states:

If people do not differ in psychological traits like talent or drive, then anyone
who is better off must be avaricious or larcenous (as I mentioned earlier).
Massive killing of kulaks and "rich" or "bourgeois" peasants was a feature of
Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

If the mind is structureless at birth and shaped by its experience, a society
that wants the right kind of minds must control the experience ("It is on a blank
page that the most beautiful poems are written"). Twentieth-century Marxist
states were not just dictatorships but totalitarian dictatorships. They tried to
control every aspect of life: childrearing, education, clothing, entertainment,
architecture, the arts, even food and sex. Authors in the Soviet Union were
enjoined to become "engineers of human souls." In China and Cambodia, mandatory
communal dining halls, same-sex adult dormitories, and the separation of children
from parents were recurring (and detested) experiments.

If people are shaped by their social environments, then growing up bourgeois can
leave a permanent psychological stain ("Only the newborn baby is spotless"). The
descendants of landlords and "rich peasants" in postrevolutionary regimes bore a
permanent stigma and were persecuted as readily as if bourgeois parentage were a
genetic trait. Worse, since parentage is invisible but discoverable by third
parties, the practice of outing people with a "bad background" became a weapon of
social competition. That led to the atmosphere of denunciation and paranoia that
made life in these regimes an Orwellian nightmare.

If there is no human nature leading people to favor the interests of their
families over "society," then people who produce more crops on their own plots
than on communal farms whose crops are confiscated by the state must be greedy or
lazy and punished accordingly. Fear rather than self-interest becomes the
incentive to work.

Most generally, if individual minds are interchangeable components of a
superorganic entity called society, then the society, not the individual, is the
natural unit of health and well-being and the proper beneficiary of human
striving. The rights of the individual person have no place.

None of this is meant to impugn the Blank Slate as an evil doctrine, any more
than a belief in human nature is an evil doctrine. Both are separated by a great
many steps from the wicked acts committed under their banners, and they must be
evaluated on factual grounds. But it is meant to overturn the simplistic linkage
of the sciences of human nature with the moral catastrophes of the twentieth
century. That glib association stands in the way of our desire to understand
ourselves, and it stands in the way of the imperative to understand the causes of
those catastrophes. All the more so if the causes have something to do with a
side of ourselves we do not fully understand.

> The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
> Steven Pinker
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/
>
> -----------------
>

> T
>
>

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message
news:79GdndcIZo5...@edaptivity.com...

You seem to have little patience since I am not one here as much as you I guess.
You should give me at least some time to respond before getting all excited about
the decline of totalitarianism as a viable opion any more.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=robot

>

[Immortalist]

"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rpjud0pop8i49l9j8...@4ax.com...

> On 27 Jun 2004 13:21:11 -0700, reanima...@yahoo.com (The
> Immortalist) wrote:
>
> >Hitler was undeniably influenced by the bastardized versions of
> >Darwinism and genetics that were popular in the early decades of the
> >twentieth century, and he specifically cited natural selection and the
> >survival of the fittest in laying out his poisonous doctrine.
>
> This speech delivered by Dr. Walter Grob, the head of the Nazi Party's
> Office of Racial Policy. He was speaking to a women's meeting at the
> Gau Party Rally in Cologne on 13 October 1934. After this speech I
> will make my comment on it.
>
> My Dear German Women and Girls!

Why evolution breeds monsters like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin
Quick-read this article:

Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas powerfully shaped the belief systems of
mass murderers like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin.

Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a
superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called
"eugenics" that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea
of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory
of evolution.

The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the "fit" and the
"unfit." Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure that the "fit" had children and
the "unfit" did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got
monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as "unfit,"
and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly "biologically inferior." (The
United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to
the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the
theory.)

The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the "master
race" by exterminating the "unfit." If evolution was right, they reasoned, and
"survival of the fittest" was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what
could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the "unfit"?

Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have
quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute
moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like
compulsory sterilization, Hitler's death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal
scale, can no longer be said to be evil.

Trotsky . another monster brainwashed by evolution
Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was a fanatical supporter of
Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of
the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided were enemies of the Soviet State. He
confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent
peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno. He inflicted torture and
violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of
the Godless to get rid of religion.

Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He said: "Darwin
stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the
universe." He said that Darwin's ideas "intoxicated" him. And he could not
understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as
belief in Darwin's ideas.

Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin's theory of evolution as
scientific justification for dismissing God's moral laws. He clearly saw that the
two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible. His atrocities were
consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who
created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no
longer a reason to avoid despicably violent crimes. Even if this means murdering
everyone who disagrees with you.

World's worst mass-murderer was influenced by Darwin at 19

Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), was studying at
Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin.
One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an
atheist. At the age of 19, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary
because of his revolutionary connections.

Stalin is regarded as the worst mass-murderer the world has ever seen. With God
out of his way after embracing Darwin's evolutionary ideas, Stalin had no
restrictions of conscience or morals. He set up a terrorist police State,
persecuted and murdered innocent communists, and instituted trials in which most
surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and were executed. He
encouraged "Stalinist adoration," which included naming cities after him (such as
Stalingrad, Staliniri, and Stalinogorsk), and advocated homage given to him in
virtually all public speeches and in print. He even murdered Leon Trotsky.

Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas powerfully shaped Stalin's approach to
society. Oppression, atheism, self-glorification, and the blood of his many
innocent victims flowed from Stalin's rejection of his Creator after reading and
believing Darwin's evolutionary theories.

And the most tragic aspect of all this? That while Stalin, Trotsky, and Hitler
were turning their backs on their Creator, they were building their racist and
murderous philosophies on a lie.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=hitler+darwin+evolutionary+theory

> ...An idea is not false or evil because the Nazis misused it. As the
> historian Robert Richards wrote of an alleged connection between
> Nazism and evolutionary biology, "If such vague similarities suffice
> here, we should all be hus-tlea to the gallows." Indeed, if we
> censored ideas that the Nazis abused, we would have to give up far
> more than the application of evolution and genetics to human behavior.
> We would have to censor the study of evolution and genetics, period.
>
> ...though both Nazi and Marxist ideologies led to industrial-scale

> killing, their biological and psychological theories were op-posites.

> the out-groups as less than human. It doesn't matter whether the

> groups are thought to be defined by their biology or by their history.
> Psychologists have found that they can create instant intergroup
> hostility by sorting people on just about any pretext, including the
> flip of a coin.
>
> The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
> Steven Pinker

> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/
>

[free]

The Immortalist wrote:
> Hitler was undeniably influenced by the bastardized versions of
> Darwinism and genetics that were popular in the early decades of the
> twentieth century, and he specifically cited natural selection and the
> survival of the fittest in laying out his poisonous doctrine. He
> believed in an extreme Social Darwinism in which groups were the unit
> of selection and a struggle among groups was necessary for national
> strength and vigor. He believed that the groups were constitutionally
> distinct races, that their members shared a distinctive biological
> makeup, and that they differed from one another in strength, courage,
> honesty, intelligence, and civic-mindedness. He wrote that the
> extinction of inferior races was part of the wisdom of nature, that
> the superior races owed their vitality and virtue to their genetic
> purity, and that the superior races were in danger of being degraded
> by interbreeding with the inferior ones. He used these beliefs to
> justify his war of conquest and his genocide of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
> and homosexuals.

Hitler was wrong about evolution, there is no wisdom in
evolution, it is blind luck who wins.

Hitler got the view of supremecy from Christianity and
his own religious upbringing by anti-semitic preists.

Only a theist could have perverted evolution in the
way Hitler did, only a Christian could have killed millions
of jews bringing fordist factory abstraction to the
genocide of a people.

Bush certainly hates evolution, and believes the dinosaurs
are liberal myths, so we are atleast lucky there.

[Immortalist]

"free" <fr...@freedom.place> wrote in message
news:40E04EBD...@freedom.place...

Yes, but don't miss the main point; Hitler and Marx thought they could "reshape
human nature" but it bit back and was not just a blank slate that anything could
be written upon.

Bush is one of those wacko Baptists and they got the "Human Nature" germ
alrighty. They call it "the flesh" I think, and it is not a blank slate nor do
they believe we are innocent little "noble savages" corrupted by the environment
only but were born "tainted and in sin."

[MagicMush]

> Hitler got the view of supremecy from Christianity and
> his own religious upbringing by anti-semitic preists.

Wrong. If Christianity is so "anti-semitic", then why did American Christian
soldiers liberate jews from the concentration camps? If they are so
anti-semitic, why didn't they just leave them there? I'm sick and tired of
hearing shit from jewish historical revisionists - trying to rewrite history
in their favour. Fuck all of them. Whenever I hear anti-gentilist comments
like that, it makes me think my grandpa should've had no part in liberating
them.

Aryan white supremacy is not a "Christian ideology". If you haven't opened
your fucking eyes, Phillipinos can be Christian, blacks can be christian,
brazilians can be Christian, etc. Simply put, it is not a racist ideology,
UNLIKE JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISM.

M.

"free" <fr...@freedom.place> wrote in message
news:40E04EBD...@freedom.place...
>
>

[Tim]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4qdnbfufPt...@comcast.com...

"respond" - I think you men cut and paste.

>
> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=robot
>
> >
>
>
>

[Jade]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:23:54 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>Why evolution breeds monsters like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin
>Quick-read this article:

Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.

"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."

"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."

"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."

"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."

"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."

"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."

"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."

"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."

"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."

"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."

"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."

"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."

"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."

"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."

"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."

"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."

"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"

"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."

"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"

"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"

"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."

"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."

"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."

"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."

"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."

"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."

>
>Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas powerfully shaped the belief systems of
>mass murderers like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin.
>
>Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a
>superior race.

What a lot of spin. Here are the racial facts:

The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.

All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:

"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.

The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)

A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)

RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY

IQ

Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4

Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"

(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739

(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135

(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27

(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20

>The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called
>"eugenics" that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea
>of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory
>of evolution.
>
>The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the "fit" and the
>"unfit." Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure that the "fit" had children and
>the "unfit" did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got
>monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as "unfit,"
>and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly "biologically inferior." (The
>United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to
>the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the
>theory.)

Andrew Roth, a Jew.

John Service, a gentile.

Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown

Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.

>

>The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the "master
>race" by exterminating the "unfit." If evolution was right, they reasoned, and

I don't doubt that some Nazis used the term "master race". But I
haven't seen an exact quote. The speeches of Nazis are known. All you
have to do is put "Hitler speeches" or "Goebbels Speeches" in your
search engine. But apparantly "master race" is not to be found in them
anywhere. The closest thing I have seen to it in Mein Kampf is at the
end of the book, and what it says is simply the truth. This is what it
says:

"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself
to the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must
one day become ruler of the Earth."

Mein Kampf also mentions the colonies and how Whites were the
rulers and the most advanced race. But there is no indication that
Hitler wanted to mistreat the darker people.

Goebbels wrote:
"The German nation will be the intellectual leader of civilized
humanity."
Joseph Goebbels, "Das Jahr 2000," Das Reich, 25 February 1945, pp.
1-2.

>"survival of the fittest" was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what
>could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the "unfit"?

Here are some quotes from the German pamphlet "How they Lie" from
1940. The pamphlet has many pictures but the words alone are
interesting enough:
"For example, what would you say if a colleague of yours, whom you
regarded as a rival and who disliked you, were to spread the rumor
that your household is in disorder, that you murder small children and
rape defenseless women? Rest assured that in our country such a person
would soon be behind bars.
But the international politicians and journalists who slander entire
peoples in a shameless manner not only run around freely, they
impudently put on airs as the saviors of human culture. No lie is too
crude for them, no slander too vulgar-they understand their craft.
Even in World War I they knew how to incite hate with the help of
atrocity propaganda. We all recall those daily lies of the "German
barbarian" who, "like a wild beast rages over the earth and destroys
everything in hate and the fury of annihilation, who tortures children
and delights in the tears of mothers," as a foreign paper once wrote.
In war, man stands against man. Each serves the Fatherland in his own
way, and no soldier will deny the knightly convictions of a noble
opponent. Today, however, a cowardly gang of professional agitators
daily invents new lies and pictures from the safety of their desks.
How was the German soldier once depicted by enemy atrocity propaganda?
We all know them, for we had fathers, brothers, sons, and men out
there. For instance, on 20 March 1915, the newspaper "Le Rire Rouge"
published the following picture of the good German soldier:
A bloodthirsty murderer of women and children, a robber and plunderer,
who nourishes himself with sausages made from human flesh-that was how
it saw the brave and loyal German soldier.
Each of us knows what a crude and baseless lie this is. Every decent
person in the world should have known this. And yet: "Some of it will
always be believed, the stupid and gullible will never see through it
all" - so hope the political liars and slanderers.
We know what to think about this flood of slander flowing over the
German people. We heard the same things between 1914 and 1918. Then as
now, they are attempting to drive a wedge between leaders and people.
The goal of this propaganda is always the annihilation of Germany.
We are also familiar with the old lie about the desecration of
churches and shrines, which are once again in fashion with our
enemies.
This is the undamaged cathedral of Tschenstochau.
The picture of the Polish shrine of the Black Madonna, with the German
soldiers in the foreground, was taken after its alleged destruction by
German bombers.
While the lying and yellow press of the entire world and the enemy
transmitters were inventing hypocritical stories about the presumed
destruction of the holy shrine, the Prior of Tschenstochau wrote the
above letter to the German military authorities that clearly testifies
that the monastery and holy shrine were untouched.
Thus the lie regarding supposed German attack could be immediately
exposed. The English Ministry of Advertising has had nothing to say
since.
In reality, these lies are ancient. Our enemies always babble about
violated sanctuaries, persecuted priests, murdered children and
tortured women in order to prejudice the world against Germany and to
arouse the impression that the world must be defended against "the
barbarians who are threatening human culture."
The picture above is taken from a leafet dated 19 August 1914. The
same lie was used back then. Supposedly the Germans had attacked the
monastery at Jasno-Gora.
They always lied, they lie today, they lie, they lie.
There were countless numbers of these malicious pictures in World War
I. Today we see the new versions of this crude charge. Enemy radio
reports reports of drugged candy and poison gas-filled children's
balloons, with which German troops allegedly killed Polish children.
And our enemies decided to spread this vile slander in the exact
moment that the world heard from neutral journalists about the
unimaginable crimes perpetrated by the Polish on fellow German
countrymen.
All of these neutral independent reporters saw and corroborated the
terrible atrocities against Germans with their own eyes.
In light of these proven facts, the shameless enemy presumes to turn
the tables and pin these murders on the Germans, declaring that the
murdered, whose names and addresses are known, are Poles.
They hate the Führer, because he exposes their lies and crimes.
They hate him, because he rescued the hard-working German people from
exploitation.
How happy they would be to see the Führer and the entire German people
delivered into the dark machinations of the world Jewry! It shows the
impotence of the Jews, since all they can do is drag a straw man
through the streets and burn it.
What do these subhumans know about the joy of a genuine national
community? These warmongers are hard at work rousing the world against
Germany. How little they know about the indisoluble bond between
Führer and people that is so overwhelmingly clear in this picture:
The Führer speaks with German workers.
He knows that he can trust them, and they know that our cause is in
his good hands.
The enemy countries, who are so worried about the fate of the German
people, also worry about the S. A.
We have often seen them; we know how these men look. They are our
comrades, our colleagues in the workplace, our fathers, brothers, sons
and men.
Do they look like this? Since when are these imagined daggers the true
symbol of the S. A.? Once again some professional liar has taken his
pen in his hand.
They lie, they lie....
German men from all regions and occupations use their free time and
energy in regular practice, so they can be ready to serve the
community. When in the summer of 1939 the agricultural labor force was
too small to bring in the rich harvest, these men freely joined in to
help with the harvest, serving the homeland on peaceful fields. Why
does the enemy press, which loves to speak of its objective reporting,
never carry such pictures of Germany?
The more one examines their endless scribbling and radio news, the
clearer one sees that these expert liars have never spoken the truth,
not even once.
This time a newspaper really outdid itself. Here we see how a German
holiday is libeled.
Christmas and Nazi Winter Relief
We all know this picture. It is the Christmas celebration of a German
family that did not have the means by itself to celebrate this holiday
of love in the way the Führer wishes, in the way that every German
family should experience.
The NSV got involved.
Helpers, men and women, walked upstairs and downstairs, heard the
wishes of the needy, and provided gifts.
We all know the results. In any case, the 80 million people of the
greater German Reich know that the liar who drew the picture on the
previous page of an alleged German Christmas is not only a liar but
also an idiot. If the gentlemen wanted to lie, they should have at
least started out more intelligently, so that they were not found out
immediately.
What National Socialist Germany has done and continues to do for
working people is unique in the entire world.
The foreign plutocratic countries that are dominated by high finance
viewed this new and happy life with envy and ill-will. They never
ceased in their endeavor to compel this new Germany into war, to keep
it in the same miserable state it was in after the Treaty of
Versailles.
But Germany knows what it has to lose. And because it is stronger than
the rest of the world, it will end this struggle victoriously.
Mr. Churchill, English warmonger, First Lord of the Admiralty,
architect of the encirclement campaign had it easy in the fall of
1939.
When he decided to wage war against Germany, he selected four English
passenger ships that were sailing to America. Then he sent the above
telegram, dated 28 August 1939, to Cunard White Star Lines, compelling
them to turn German passengers away from these ships, as they would be
uncomfortable eyewitnesses. See the accompanying letter from the
shipping company, dated 29 August 1939. Churchill then sent suitable
"rescue ships" to be "coincidentally" on the course of these ships,
which were now loaded with Americans. The Athenia was torpedoed and
sunk. If the affair with the "Athenia" not worked, then one of the
other three ships would have been sunk,so that Mr. Churchill would
have more stories for the English Ministry of Lies.
We know the rest. The yellow press of the world blows Churchill's
lying horn obediently: a German submarine allegedly sank the
"Athenia."
But the evil, criminal escapade failed. Germany got hold of the
documents and exposed the criminals.
Once again, one of the vilest and most base of the English lies is
exposed.
The following story is perhaps the best way of showing the reality of
moneybags journalism, and how decent foreign journalists are forced to
invent lie afer lie.
A couple of months ago, a foreign journalist whose name we must hide
in order to protect his job, came to Germany. He wanted to see the
alleged "Nazi hell" with his own eyes, in order to give an eyewitness
account.
He saw workers who had jobs. He saw workers taking vacations with the
KdF. And he saw workers going to the theater. He saw the NSV's charity
for the poor. He saw and was amazed.
He had not expected to see that! How could he, knowing the truth,
continue to write lies and false atrocity stories about Germany, like
the financiers of his newspaper want it?...
In German camps, criminals and misfits live in clean and orderly
accommodations, receive sufficient nourishment and have enough time
for both work and play.
The foreign press reporter visited one of these camps.
The officials of the German concentration camp were outraged when they
later read his article.
The article talked about piles of corpses over which the poor reporter
had to climb, of moaning people in dark dungeons, of caning orgies and
other such imaginary atrocities.
The man had seemed so honest. How could he lie like that? What had
happened? The journalist wrote a letter to explain. He had written a
truthful account of what he had seen at the concentration camp.
But the owner of the newspaper switched everything around. Naturally
there are decent foreign papers that would never falsify the facts
like that, but we are not talking about them here.
The newspaperman begged the Germans not to take action against his
paper or the publisher who falsified the report, because then he would
lose his job.
That is how freedom of the press looks like in other countries; that
is how the lies and fairy tales come to be.
The Führer spoke about the criminal newspaper Jews and the war
profiteers, in his speech on 6 October. They order the journalists and
radio reporters around like schoolboys. These "servants of public
opinion" are not allowed to have convictions or express their true
opinions, and only a very few exceptions prove this rule. They must
lie and slander and blacken Germany and its Führer to keep the
gentlemen behind the plutocratic, moneybag policies in business.
But why do these newspaper moneybags lie so crudely, so stupidly, so
impudently? Why do they spread their slander all over Germany of all
places?
They lie because they are weak and Germany is strong. They lie because
they want to make money by going to war against Germany, even though
the people do not want to go to war and are scared to go to war
against a strong Germany...
Things are a thousand times better here. Things are more honest and
fair here than anywhere in the entire world.
Here we recognize the honor of the worker.
Here there is a right to work.
Here the moneybags are not in control...
In conclusion:
We will not be confused by the lies of the foreign countries! We know
what we are fighting for!

>
>Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have
>quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God,

The Germans believed in God.

Here is an article from Frauen Warte magazine, the National Socialist
Party's magazine for
women:
The Educational Principles of the New Germany:
What Schools and Parents Need to Know About the Goals of National
Socialist Education

German people, German parents! The new Germany created by our people's
chancellor Adolf Hitler places special demands on the German youth....

Religion
Life comes from God and returns to God. All life and all races follow
God's ordinances. No people and no race can ignore them. We want the
German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They
must realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole
people, and that they lose contact with life when they lose contact
with God! God and nation are the two foundations of the life of the
individual and the community. We want no shallow and superficial
piety, rather a deep faith that God guides the world, that he controls
it, and a consciousness of the relationship between God and each
individual, and between God and the live of the people and the
fatherland. The National Socialist state will promote such a deeply
religious educational system. We want parents to support and
strengthen this by honesty and by good example.
Race, military training, leadership, religion! These are the four
unshakable foundations of the new German National Socialist education!

> who had given humankind absolute
>moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like
>compulsory sterilization, Hitler's death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal
>scale, can no longer be said to be evil.

One of the points on the National Socialist party platform was that
the party was for positive Christianity. This is what it said:

"The party as such, stands for positive Christianity but does not
bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession."

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

" But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the strongest
antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged-the nation, because it
was held to be an invention of the 'capitalist' class (how often I had
heard that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an
instrument in the hands of the bourgeosie for the exploitation of the
working masses; the authority of the law, because that was a means of
holding down the proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the
people, so as to exploit them afterward; morality, as a badge of
stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that they did not drag
in the mud.
"At first I remained silent; but that could not last very long."

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with
the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
am defending the handiwork of the Lord."

"Was not the Press instrumental in bringing in a state of moral
degradation among our people? Were not morals and public decency made
to look ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally
our people also became modernized?"

"It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic
principles underlying ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in
violence. And yet this human world of ours would be inconceivable
without the practical existance of a religious belief. The great
masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of
the people especially, faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral
outlook on life."

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove
those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God"

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

Of religion he (the Jew) makes a mockery. Morality and decency
are described as anti-quated prejudices"

"Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and
Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts content,
while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up
his sleeve."

"the Jew trafficked in the freedom of the nation and sold our
country to the masters of international high finance. So in our day he
has succeeded again, this time by raising ructions between the two
German religious denominations while the foundations on which both
rest are being eaten away and destroyed through the poison injected by
the international and cosmopolitan Jew."

"The most devoted Protestant could stand side by side with the
most devoted Catholic in our ranks"

"The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in
our own country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight
against him may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period
for other nations as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan
humanity in the struggle for its existance."

Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:

"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism
in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
two-and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
and distributed in leaflet form:

1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with
the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of
charge in State Hospitals.

2) Non-interference with prostitution.

3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard
to marriage and divorce.

4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be
educated by the community.

5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to
be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.

"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the
wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the
substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.

"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world
movement? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted
this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it
prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the
actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight
against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing
less than a Jewish International."

Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted from
John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope"
"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany
means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the
Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and
unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is
hostile to religion is a lie."

Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1934
" Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great
religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian
Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but
strengthened the religious institutions."

Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26
Aug. 1934
"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it
anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real
Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours
alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of
to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic
movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness
of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian,
these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail
to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our
successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not
unblest by God."

Adolf Hitler, to Nazi leaders on 2 June 1937, as reported by a
correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph"
"We National Socialists, too, have deep in our hearts our own faith.
We cannot do otherwise. No man can mould the history of peoples or of
the world unless he has upon his will and his capacities the blessing
of Providence."

Adolf Hitler, speaking of the Winter Help Campaign on 5 Oct. 1937
This Winter Help Work is also in the deepest sense a Christian work.
When I see, as I so often do, poorly clad girls collecting with such
infinite patience in order to care for those who are suffering from
the cold while they themselves are shivering with cold, then I have
the feeling that they are all apostles of a Christianity-- and in
truth of a Christianity which can say with greater right than any
other: This is the Christianity of an honest confession, for behind it
stand not words but deeds.

Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.
National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it
is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial
principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and
leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship....
We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for
exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement.
Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any
case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our
programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception
and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the
central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the
maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by
God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a
divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship,
but openly before the face of the Lord....
Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for
that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is
the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so
far as they are known to us men.

Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the "Old Guard" at Munich on 24 Feb.
1939
If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbour, i.e. the
tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the
hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we
who are the more positive Christians. For in these spheres the
community of the people of National Socialist Germany has accomplished
a prodigious work.

VOELKISCHER BEOBACHTER, 24 March 1933, Page 1

[Hitler's Speech at second meeting of the Reichstag of 1933, on
23 March 1933, asking for the adoption of the Enabling Act.]

"While the Government is determined to carry through the political and
moral purging of our public life, it is creating and insuring
prerequisites for a truly religious life. The Government sees in both
Christian confessions the most important factors for the maintenance
of our
folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and the
States.
However, it respects that its work will meet with a similar
appreciation.
The Government will treat all other denominations with equal
objective justice.
It can never condone, though, that belonging to a certain
denomination
or to a certain race might be regarded as a license to commit or
tolerate
crimes. The Government will devote its care to the sincere living
together
of Church and State."

Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on March 23, 1933 "The Reich
government sees in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the
ethics and morality of the folk."

In a speech delivered April 12, 1922, published in "My New Order,"
and quoted in "Freethought Today" (April 1990), Hitler said:

"For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I
look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at
the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and
misery. "When I go out in the morning and see these men
standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I
believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity
for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn
against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and
exploited."

>
>Trotsky . another monster brainwashed by evolution
>Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was a fanatical supporter of
>Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of
>the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided were enemies of the Soviet State. He
>confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent
>peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno. He inflicted torture and
>violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of
>the Godless to get rid of religion.

Trotsky was a Jew.

>

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com

[Jade]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:09:52 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Yes, but don't miss the main point; Hitler and Marx thought they could "reshape
>human nature" but it bit back and was not just a blank slate that anything could
>be written upon.

When did Hitler say anything like that?

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:oIudnXnIcZ5...@edaptivity.com...

There you go again trying to prescribe how much I should add to my responses
quotes from other material. Sometimes when I start an conversation I do paste
more sometimes not. Are you saying that I should never quote other people or that
I should quote other people less than I do?

But since you press the issue do you have an example of this wide acceptance and
a case of not knowing about what I pasted? Or is it more the case that I was
expressing an opinion you don't agree with and you didn't know how to respond so
you accused to confused?

> >
> > http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=robot
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Immortalist]

"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:u091e0p9r5ugalrlc...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:23:54 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Why evolution breeds monsters like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin
> >Quick-read this article:
>
>
> Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
> at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
>
> "'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
> the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
> 1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
> significance of the Spanish problem.

1)
Three women - a German, a Jew and a polack - all gave birth to seven pound baby
boys at the same time. The nurses got the babies mixed up somehow and couldn't
tell which baby belonged to which mother.
After an hour of mass confusion the father of the German baby decided he would
settle the problem. He walked into the nursery and lined up the three infants in
a row. He then clicked his heels, raised his arm in a salute and shouted, "Heil
Hitler!"

The German baby snapped to attention, the Jewish baby shit it's pants and the
polish baby played in it!

2)
Why did Hitler kill himself?
The Jews sent him a gas bill!

3)
Did you hear about the queer German?
Ate Off Hitler!

4)
What sweet did Hitler hate more than any other?
Jew Jew Beans......But I heard he enjoyed them roasted!

5)
Have you heard about Hitler's new microwave oven?
It seats 500!

6)
What was Adolf's favourite song?
"If I knew you were coming I'd have baked a kike!"

[Immortalist]

"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5oa1e0l3ckqbl3qin...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:09:52 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Yes, but don't miss the main point; Hitler and Marx thought they could
"reshape
> >human nature" but it bit back and was not just a blank slate that anything
could
> >be written upon.
>
> When did Hitler say anything like that?
>

Would it be necessary for Hitler to say something to have tried to "reshape human
nature?"

He could try and burn all the books and people's nature would rebel and hide some
banned reading material.

Totalitarian control, whether right fascist or left communist, wanted total
control in order to alter those aspects of human nature resitant to an
ideological stance and possibly weed out the gene pool of those who couldn't
conform enough for their tastes.

[Nils-Erik Forsberg]

It is a good overview of globally spread and practised 'non innate and
non durable structured property' I think.

The most urgent question to answer is - what is the way out of the
misery that follow such thinking?

How is the human nature?

Durable and innate structured or not?

Nils F

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Jade <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<u091e0p9r5ugalrlc...@4ax.com>...
[snip]

>
> The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
> extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
> every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
>
> The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions
> of Christians. Communism was Jewish.

The following list of major Gentile Communist figures
was compiled for satiric purposes, but I tried to make
it as accurate as possible.
So here it is: an answer to all the net-Nazis
who try to convince us that the major Communist figures
were "mainly" or "mostly" or "almost exclusively" Jewish.
What follows contains no polemic, but only facts
(aside from a few snide observations). So
without further ado, the list that pushes back
the last frontier of ignorance, the list of
COMMIE GOYIM!!!!!!!

François Noël Babeuf ("French revolutionary, organizer of
a communist uprising against the Directory . . . he formed
a secret society that plotted to overthrow the government;
it became known as the Conspiracy of the Equals . . . ."
"Although many thinkers in the past expressed ideas that
were similar to later socialism, the first theorist
who may properly be called socialist was François Noël
Babeuf . . . ." Columbia Encyclopedia, articles on Babeuf
and Socialism)

Louis Auguste Blanqui ("Inspired by Babeuf, [Blanqui] coined the
phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and devoted
his life to achieveing it through conspiratorial means. . ."
Pipes, Conspiracy, p. 78.)

Etienne Cabet (French Socialist, author of Voyage en Icarie,
the word "communism" was initially associated with his
ideas)

Engels (Never forget that The Communist Manifesto
was originally written in German
by two guys named Karl and Friedrich.)

BOLSHEVIKS:

Alexander Bogdanov (Important early Bolshevik theorist, Had broken
with Lenin by the time of the revolution.)

Lenin (5th on Rudolph Rummel's list of the "This Century's Bloodiest
Dictators" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF )

Stalin (Most blood-stained person who ever lived, #1 on Rummel's list)

Georgi Konstantinovich "Sergo" Ordzhonikidze (Soviet leader
in Armenia and Georgia, Politburo member under Stalin, Beria
and Mikoyan both named sons "Sergo" after him)

Felix Dzerzhinsky (Founder, in 1918, of the Checka secret
police agency, precursor organization of the GPU, OGPU, NKVD,
and KGB)

Nikolai Bukharin (Major Bolshevik theoretician, Politburo Member,
Editor of Pravda)

Lev Borisovich Kamenev (Member of the Original Politburo,
Often mistakenly identified as a Jew although mother was non-Jew,
Originally sided with Stalin and Zinoviev against Trotsky but
forced out by Stalin along with Zinoviev in 1926)

Anatoli Vasilyevich Lunacharsky (Revolutionary, Literary Figure,
Commissar of Education 1917–29)

Nikolai N. Krestinski (Member of First Politburo along with Lenin,
Stalin, Kamenev, and Trotsky)

Georgi Vasilyevich Chicherin (Foreign Comissar/Minister,
succeeding Trotsky, until 1928)

Aleksey Ivanovich Rykov (Commissar for the Interior after 1917,
Politburo member under Lenin and Stalin, Premier from 1924-1931,
Sided with Stalin against Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky but
fell afoul of Stalin shortly afterwards)

Mikhail Ivanovich Kalinin (Chairman of Central Executive Committee
1919-1946, Politburo Member 1925-46)

Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko ("Leading Bolshevik. Commanded storming of
Winter Palace in october 1917; held important military, political,
legal and diplomatic posts after Revolution. Disappeared during
purges" All Stalin's Men, p. 173)

Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya (Mrs. Lenin, Prominent Bolshevik)

Aleksandra Mikhailovna Kollontai (Prominent Bolshevik, Feminist,
People's Commissar for Welfare)

Alexander Shlyapnikov (People's Commissar for Labor until Oct.
1918, later Central Committee Member, Leader--with Kollontai--
of "Worker's Opposition")

Nikolai Vasilyevich Krylenko (Military comissar and
later heavily involved in political trials and purges
until he was purged hinmself in 1938)

Inessa Armand (Prominent Bolshevik, Feminist, Lenin's Mistress)

STALIN'S RULE:

Kliment Voroshilov (Active Bolshevik prior to revolution,
Major Red Army commander during civil war, Close associate
of Stalin, Politburo Member under Stalin, Out of favor under
Khruschev, restored to Central Committee in 1966)

Vyacheslav Rudolfovich Menzhinsky (Succeeded Dzerzhinsky as head
of NKVD in 1926)

Nikolai Yezhov (Head of NKVD 1936-1938, replacing Yagoda,
Wave of terror known as "Yezhovshchina")

Lavrenti Beria (Head of Soviet Georgia and Transcaucasia,
Head of NKVD from 1938 until Stalin's Death, Probably second
most powerful figure in Stalin's government for much
of that time and certainly the most hated and feared,
Deputy Premier under Malenkov)

Nikolai Bulganin (Defense Minister under Stalin, briefly
succeeded Malenkov as Premier)

Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov (Early editor of Pravda prior
to revolution, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars
after Rykov, then Foreign Minister, negotiated non-agression pact
between Soviets and Nazi Germany, According to Roy Medvedev,
"In 1932 he played a particularly sinister part in the
Ukraine, where he directed the state grain-procurement
opeations in the southern provinces; after his intervention
the southern Ukraine was gripped by a terrible famine that
carried off millions," All Stalin's Men, p. 87)

Georgi Maksimilianovich Malenkov (Politburo member, Deputy
Premier under Stalin, briefly succeeded Stalin as Premier)

Mikhail Tomsky (Politburo Member, Trade Union Leader,
Another major figure in the power struggles that
eventually led to the consolidation of Stalin's power)

Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov (Central Committee Secretary,
Rival of Malenkov, Anti-Semite)

Stanislav Vikent'evich Kosior (Ukrainian First Secretary,
Reported to have said the following: " . . . the peasant
is adopting a new tactic. He refuses to reap the harvest.
He wants the bread grain to die in order to choke the
Soviet government with the bony hand of famine. We will
show him what famine is." Harvest of Sorrow, p. 221)

Pavel Petrovich Postyshev ("Postyshev was, in fact, Stalin's
effective plenipotenitary in the task of 'Bolshevizing' the
Ukrainian party and extracting further grain from the
starving Ukrainian villages" Harvest of Sorrow, p. 241.)

Grigori Ivanovich Petrovsky ("When a factory official told Petrovsky
that his employees were talking of five million people having already
died and asked what he should tell them, he is quoted as answering,
'Tell them nothing! What they say is true. We know millions are dying.
That is unfortunate, but the glorious future of the Soviet Union will
justify that. Tell them nothing!'" Harvest of Sorrow, p. 325.)

Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan (Armenian Communist Party head,
Chairman of the USSR Supreme Soviet Presidium, Politburo
member.)

Sergei Mironovich Kirov (Active in Party from Civil War, Politburo
Member under Stalin, Stalin used his assassination--which he probably
ordered himself--as a pretext for getting rid of Zinoviev, Rykov, and
Kamenev.)

Andrei Yanuarievich Vyshinsky (Chief Prosecutor of Soviet Union
1935-1939)

OTHER POLITBURO MEMBERS UNDER STALIN:

Valerian Vladimirovich Kuibyshev
Vlas Yakovlevich Chubar'
Yan Ernestovich Rudzutak
Aleksandr Sergeevich Shcherbakov
Andrei Andreevich Andreev
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Uglanov
Robert Ivanovich Eikhe
Sergei I. Syrtsov

NKVD OFFICIALS

Roman Aleksndrovich Pillyar (Deputy Head of Counterespionage 1921-1926)

Eduard Petrovich Berzin (Head of Dalstroy 1932-1937)

Karp Aleksandrovich Pavlov (Head of Dalstroy and Kolyma camp 1937-40)

Ivan Fedorovich Nikishev (Nov 1938-Dec 1939 Head of Khabarovsk NKVD, Candidate
Member of Central Committee 1939-52, Head of Dalstroy 1940-1946)

DEFENDANTS WITH YAGODA AT BUKHARIN TRIAL 1937:

Pavel Petrovich Bulanov (Yagoda's Secretary)

Georgi E. Prokoviev (Deputy Head OGPU 1932, Deputy People's
Commissar NKVD 1935-1936, Deputy People's Commissar for
Communications until 1937)

Georgi Aleksandrovich Molchanov (Head of Secret Political Dept GUGB,
In charge of Zinoviev case)

Aleksandr M Shanin (Head Transport Department GUGB, Commissar
GB Grade 2 November 1935)

Stanislaw Frantsevich Redens (Head of NKVD Administration in Moscow
under Yagoda, Stalin's wife's sister's husband)

YEZHOV PERIOD:

Mikhail Petrovich Frinovsky (October 1936-Fall 1938 Deputy People's
Commissar NKVD, one of Yezhov's two top henchmen along with Zakovsky)

Leonid Mikhailovich Zakovsky ("Zakovski is reported as saying that he could
soon make Karl Marx confess to being an agent of Bismark. Dzerzhinski, when
he had called him at the Smolny to be one of the founding members of the
Checka, had said that the orginazation needed 'manly, fearless, bold' officers
of his type. Over the past few years these qualities had all been manifested
in the torturing and framing of his old comrades, in a manner which illuminates
much sentimental nonsense about the brotherhood of the revolutionaries,
the pure-heartedness of the Old Bolsheviks." Conquest, Inside Stalin's
Secret Police, p. 57)

Nikolai Galaktionovich Nikolaev-Zhurid (Old Checkist, Old Bolshevik, Leningrad OGPU,
Head of Special Department Fall 1938)

Nikolai Nikolayevich Federov (Head of Odessa NKVD, Member Supreme Soviet)

Grigory Fedorovich Gorbach (Head of Novosibirsk NKVD 1937, Member
Supreme Soviet)

NKVD OFFICIALS--BERIA PROTEGES (KNOWN AS "BERIA'S GANG"):

Bogdan Kobulov (Deputy head of NKVD under Beria, with Serov oversaw
deportation of Crimean Tartars and other national groups,
Involved in day-to-day operation of the Gulag)

Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov (Deputy Head of NKVD along with Kobulov,
Head of KGB 1954-1958 "Ivan Serov was awarded the Order of Suvorov,
First Class, reserved for major victories in the field, on March 9
1944--that is, immediately after the largest of his deportation
operations, that of the Chechen-Ingush. He was later made a
Hero of the Soviet Union and received a number of other orders."
Conquest, The Nation Killers, p. 82)

Vsevolod Nikolayevich Merkulov (Head of NKGB 1941-1946, briefly head
of MGB in 1946)

Sergei Goglidze (Head of Leningrad NKVD, Later Deputy Minister
of State Security and Chief of Third Directorate of MGB)

Vladimir Dekanozov (Head of GUGB Foreign Department,
1953 Minister MVD Georgia)

Lavrentii Tsanava (1921-33 Checka-OGPU in Caucasus,
1938-1952 Head of Belorussia NKVD)

Grigorii Karanadze ( Head of Crimea NKVD 1938-1942,
1952 People's Commissar NKVD/MVD Georgia)

Aleksei Sadzhaia (Head of Uzbekistan NKVD)

Amaiak Kobulov (Brother of Bogdan, Head of Ukraine NKVD 1939,
NKVD Uzbekistan 1943)

Mikhail Gvishiani (Head of Far East NKVD, His son Dzhermen--
named after Dzerzhinsky and Menzhinsky--was married to Kosygin's
daughter)

Avksentii Rapava (1941-1948 Head of Georgia NKVD then NKGB, MGB)

M. D. Bagirov (Head of the Communist Party in Azerbaijan)

MVD-MGB-KGB OFFICIALS:

Sergei Kruglov (Briefly head of NKVD, MVD first deputy, Major
subordinate of Beria, but joined Khrushchev against Beria)

Viktor Semyonovich Abakumov (Head of MGB 1946-1951, Technically
another of Beria's subordinates, but independent of Beria and a rival
to Merkulov)

Sergey Ogoltsov (Head of MGB July 14 1951 - August 9 1951)

Semyon Denisovich Ignatiyev (Head of MGB 1951-1953, Since
he had been part of the Zhdanov faction, his appointment
was a blow to Beria)

Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shelepin (Head of KGB 1958-1961,
Supported Khrushchev's rise to power and was also involved
in his removal)

Vladimir Yefimovich Semichastniy (Head of KGB 1961-1967,
Also heavily involved in Khrushchev's removal)

[See "LATER USSR FIGURES" for Andropov]

Vitaliy Vasilyevich Fedorchuk (Head of KGB May 26 1982 - December 17
1982)

Viktor Mikhaylovich Chebrikov (Head of KGB 1982-1988)

Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kryuchkov (Head of KGB 1988-1991)

LATER USSR FIGURES:

Mikhail Andreyevich Suslov (Ideological watchdog maintaining purity of
communist doctrine, Central Committee member from 1941, Supported both
Khruschev's rise to power and his downfall)

Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev

Alexei Nikolayevich Kosygin (Succeeded Khrushchev as Premier in 1964,
initially shared power with Brezhnev although power later declined)

Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov (Head of KGB 1967-1982, General Secretary
of Communist Party 1982-1984)
(See: http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/andropov.htm)

Konstantin Chernenko (Party General Secretary and Chairman of
Presiduim after Andropov's death)

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (Chernenko's successor)

MISCELLANEOUS:

Josip Broz Tito (9th on Rummel's list of "This Century's
Century's Bloodiest Dictators")

Aleksandar Rankovic (Tito's second in command 1948-1966)

Vulko Chervenkov (Dictator of Bulgaria 1950-1956)

Todor Zhikov (Dictator of Bulgaria 1956-1989)

Mao Tse-Tung (2nd on Rummel's list)

Zhou Enlai (Chinese Premier 1949-1976)

Zhu De (Military leader and later Deputy Chairman of Communist China)

Lin Biao (Second only to Mao in China in the late 60's, Compiler of
the Little Red Book)

Liu Shaoqi (Mao's leading deputy in 50's and early 60's)

Kang Sheng (Chinese Secret Police Chief)

Jiang Qing (Mrs. Mao, the rest of the "Gang of Four" follow)

Wang Hongwen

Yao Wenyuan

Zhang Chunqiao

Deng Xiaoping ( http://www.laogai.org/comment/dissent.htm )

Pol Pot (7th on Rummel's list)

Nuon Chea (Deputy General Secretary of Cambodia's
Communist Party, Number Two man in Pol Pot's regime, heavily
implicated in torture, mass-murder, and repression)

Ieng Sary (Pol Pot's brother-in-law, Minister of Foreign Affairs)

Khieu Samphan (Cambodian Head of State under Pol Pot)

János Kádár (Head of Communist Hungary 1956-1988)

Boleslaw Bierut (Leader of Communist Poland:
President of Communist Poland 1947-1952,
First Secretary of Central Committee 1948-1956)

Józef Cyrankiewicz (Polish Politburo member 1948-1971,
Prime Minister 1947-1952, Deputy Premier 1952-1954,
Prime Minister 1954-1970)

Marian Spychalski (Polish General, PPR-PUWP
Politburo member 1945-1949, 1959-1970)

Zenon Nowak (Polish Central Committee, Politburo
member, Secretary of Central Committee 1950-1954,
Deputy Premier until 1968)

Stanislaw Radkiewicz (Polish Minister of Public Security
1945-1954)

Wladyslaw Gomulka (Head of Communist Poland 1956-1970)

Edward Gierek (Head of Communist Poland 1970-1980)

Gheorgehe Gheorghiu-Dej (According to Dennis Deletant,
instituted "police terror" in Communist Romania)

Nicolae Ceausescu (Dej's successor, Head of Communist Romania
1965-1989--why are so many of these guys named "Nikolai"?)

Elena Ceaucescu (Ceaucescu's wife, major figure in Ceaucescu's
government, promoted cult of personality surrounding Ceaucescu)

Tudor Postelnicu (Promoted to Interior Minister of Romania in 1987,
head of dreaded Securitate security service up to that point)

Iulian Vlad (Following Postelnicu's promotion, succeeded him
as Head of Securitate)

George Nicolae Doicaru (Head of Securitate at time of 1978 defection
of Ion Pacepa)

Walter Ulbricht (Head of East Germany 1950-1971, Built Berlin Wall,
sent troops to help Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia)

Erich Honecker (Succeeded Ulbricht)

Wilhelm Zaisser (Head of Stasi 1950-1953)

Ernst Wollweber (Head of Stasi 1953-1957)

Erich Mielke (Head of Stasi 1957-1989)

Willi Stoph (East German Politburo Member, Minister of Internal
Affairs and Minister for National Defense during 1950's, became
Chairman of Council of Ministers in 1964)

Mengistu Haile Mariam (Communist dictator of Ethiopia 1977-1991,
When the Soviet regime collapsed, so did his.)

Fidel Castro

Raul Castro (Fidel's younger brother and designated heir, Defense
Minister)

Felipe Perez Roque (Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister)

Carlos Lage (Cuban Vice President)

Kim Il Sung (Head of North Korea 1948–94)

Kim Jong Il (Son of the above)

Kim Yong Nam (Presidium President of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea Supreme People's Assembly, i.e. Kim Jong
Il's second in command--not to be confused with Kim Jong Nam,
KJI's now out-of-favor oldest son)

Jang Song Thaek (KJI's brother in law--Deputy Head
of the Korean Central Committee)

Fusako Shigenobu (Head of Japanese Red Army)

Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof (Baader-Meinhof Gang)

William Z. Foster (U.S. Communist party candidate for President 1924,
1928, 1932)

Earl Russell Browder (U.S. Communist party candidate for President
1936, 1940)

Gus Hall (U.S. Communist Party candidate for President 1972, 1976,
1980, 1984)

Jarvis Tyner (Hall's running mate in 1972 and 1976)

Angela Davis (Civil rights activist and philosopher, Gus Hall's
vice-presidential candidate in 1980 and 1984.)

Enver Hoxha (Leader of Communist Albania 1946-1985)

Ramiz Alia (Hoxha's successor)

Klement Gottwald (President of Communist Czechoslovakia 1948-1953)

Gustave Husak (Leader of Czechoslovakia after suppression of
"Prague Spring.")

Otto Vilgelmovich Kuusinen (Finnish communist, exiled
to the USSR after Finnish independence was consolidated
following WW I and the civil war that ensued, headed failed
Soviet-supported bogus Terijojki government after Soviet
attack on Finland in 1939, eventually rose to be the only
foreign-born member of the Soviet Politburo.)

Hertta Kuusinen (Finnish communist leader, Otto's
daughter, In a notorious 1948 speech shortly after
the communist take-over in Czechoslovakia she
stated "Czechoslovakia's way will be our way.")

Antanas Snieckus (Grand old man of Lithuanian communism,
Lived in exile in the USSR, but tried repeatedly to subvert
the Lithuanian state. Lithuanian Communist Party head after
country incorporated into USSR. Defied Moscow
and built his own brand of Lithuanian communism.)

Arvid Yanovich Pelshe (Latvian Communist Party head, head
of the Soviet Communist Party Control Committee and responsible
for internal migration policies, including deportations,
ethnic dilutions, and policies leading to de facto
Russification of non-Russian republics)

Renato Curcio (Red Brigades)

Alberto Franceschini (Red Brigades)

Mario Moretti (Red Brigades, negotiated mutual aid pact with PLO)

Ho Chi Minh

Do Muoi (Became General Secretary of Vietnamese Communist Party in
1991)

Le Kha Phieu (Became General Secretary of Vietnamese
Communist Party in 1997)

Nong Duc Manh (Current General Secretary of Vietnamese Commuunist
Party)

Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, "Carlos the Jackal"

Ernesto Che Guevara

George Habash, PFLP

Wadi Haddad, PFLP

Leila Khaled, PFLP

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albats, Yevgenia. The State Within a State: The KGB and
Its Hold on Russia--Past, Present, and Future. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994

Conquest, Robert. Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization
and the Terror-Famine. Oxford, 1986.

-----. Inside Stalin's Secret Police: NKVD Politics 1936-1939.
Stanford University, Hoover Institution Press, 1985.

-----. Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps. Viking Press, 1978.

-----. The Nation Killers: The Soviet Deportation of Nationalities.
MacMillan, 1960.

Courtois, Stephane, et. al. The Black Book of Communism.
Harvard, 1999.

Deletant, Dennis. Ceausescu and the Securitate: Coercion
and Dissent in Romania, 1965-1989.
Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1995

Jansen, Marc and Nikita Petrov. Stalin's Loyal Executioner:
People's Commissar Nikolai Ezhov 1895-1940.
Stanford University, Hoover Institution Press, 2002.

Knight, Amy. Beria: Stalin's first Lieutenant. Princeton, 1993.

Medvedev, Roy. All Stalin's Men: Six Who Carried Out the Bloody
Policies. Trans. Harold Shukman. Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984.

Pipes, Daniel. Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where
it Comes From. The Free Press, 1997

Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution.
Vintage Books, 1996.

Rummel, R. J. Death by Government. Transaction, 1994.

Service, Robert. Lenin: A Biography. Harvard, 2000.

Toronska, Teresa. "Them": Stalin's Polish Puppets.
New York: Harper and Row, 1987.

WEB SOURCES RELEVANT TO MORE THAN ONE ENTRY:

Source for some MGB, KGB entries: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB

Columbia Encyclopedia: http://www.encyclopedia.com/

Rummel's List: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF

Who was Who in Poland: http://polish-jewish-heritage.org/Eng/prl.htm

Good List of Soviet Officials
with Nationalities Noted: http://holocaust.skeptik.net/misc/party.htm

APPENDIX 1

According to Benjamin Pinkus (The Jews of the Soviet Union,
Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 83.):

"If we take all three sectors of the administration,
it emerges that of the 417 people who constituted the
ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mid 1920s (the
members of the Central Executive Committee, the Party
Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the
Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the Ministers,
and the Chairman of the Executive Committee),
twenty-seven (that is 6%) were Jews."

********************************************************************
(Thanks to Eugene Holman for entries on Mikoyan, Suslov,
the Kuusinens, Pelshe, Snieckus, and Angela Davis. Thanks to
Sergei Romanov for information on nationality of NKVD
officials.)

Hope you enjoyed it,

Yitz

http://www.geocities.com/yitzgood/

[free]

MagicMush wrote:
>>Hitler got the view of supremecy from Christianity and
>>his own religious upbringing by anti-semitic preists.
>
>
> Wrong. If Christianity is so "anti-semitic", then why did American Christian
> soldiers liberate jews from the concentration camps? If they are so
> anti-semitic, why didn't they just leave them there? I'm sick and tired of
> hearing shit from jewish historical revisionists - trying to rewrite history
> in their favour. Fuck all of them. Whenever I hear anti-gentilist comments
> like that, it makes me think my grandpa should've had no part in liberating
> them.
>
> Aryan white supremacy is not a "Christian ideology". If you haven't opened
> your fucking eyes, Phillipinos can be Christian, blacks can be christian,
> brazilians can be Christian, etc. Simply put, it is not a racist ideology,
> UNLIKE JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISM.

Jews killed Jesus, you'd think someone would hvae noticed and
wanted to get even. That some Christians sicken by their
European anti-semitic breathen had enough and so ran off
to the new world to setup a society where religion couldn't
be used by preistly politicians alas only to find that
their offspring would eventually have to return to Europe
and finally bring an end to Christian hate of Jews.
The pogroms of Christian Europe of non-Christians, jews,
muslims, atheists, witchs, pagans, are well documented.
Christianity own history shows that when it comes to
crunch time to standup to their own Christian hatemongers
they run away and try to ignore the problem hoping it
would go away, then they tried to legistlate Christian
ghate out of existance in the Americian constitution,
no Christian they hope would ever use the state to
push hate Christianity, but alas their Children Children
were sucked into a European war by Hitler who reawoke
Christian supremecy by all means necessary, twisting
atheistic acience, evolution, to the cause of the greater
reich. Hitler even meant to re-unite the protestant
and catholic schism, the Pope himself sent envoys to
Hitler pissing themselves with glee that someone would
stop the atheist Stalin who if he won would level chruches
across Europe as the former Seminary student had done in
Russia. Stalin, like Marx, got their understanding of
mass cultural herdonics from the drone dogma prevading
their societies, CHRISTIANITY. Stalin, and communists,
took the God out, Hitler put the Christian God right back
in full and center. The USA allied with the evil empire
to bring down an even greater evil, the Christian God soaked
who failed to question their own hate.

[free]

We all wish to reshape human nature either like Bush in
his own image, or like any political human being in order
to change the rule for personal advantage. Hitler was
a ideologue, Stalin was in it for the power (IMHO),
but we all have those motives in us just we are more
greedy and realise to get most of what we want we
have to loss some battles, Hitler, Stalin never lost
a single battle in their own minds eye until they had
a bullet in the head.

>
> Bush is one of those wacko Baptists and they got the "Human Nature" germ
> alrighty. They call it "the flesh" I think, and it is not a blank slate nor do
> they believe we are innocent little "noble savages" corrupted by the environment
> only but were born "tainted and in sin."

Every generation throwsup a group of dinasuars that pray for the
asteroid to hit, few generations are stupid enough to give them
real power, and our generation better wakeup soon less they
divert the asteroid toward us. The rapture

[Tim]

Smokee <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dq6dnWxcl-T...@comcast.com...

Actually it's like I've said on several occasions before this. I've pointed
out that on the rare occasions that you do say anything your sentences come
out as meaningless, disjointed and misspelled crap. I have seen many
examples of your inability to understand what you cut and paste. Remember
several months back you started cutting and pasting stuff on David Hume and
Kant. You made claims that they were both right. How can that be stupid? You
railed against Nietzsche (and said nothing showing that you have not read or
atleast understood his work) in the past then you start cutting and pasting
as if you've read him.

Second what you are cutting and pasting is someone else's opinion not yours.
If you don't read the original then you aren't capable of an opinion on it.
Third you should be the last person here pointing out others for not knowing
how to respond. Pasting isn't responding - a monkey can cut and paste - are
you a monkey? Remember some of the stuff you did type - the whiny "look look
I'm Immortalist and I smoke" - remember you whiny lightweight wannnabe. Or
the other rants when you get bored - why not read some philosophy instead of
posting insults to people who are above you? Or the really funny ones where
you brag about being a scrapper - my bet is that you are a 90lb lesbian
woman. Later Smokee.

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:8vKdnZV9sNT...@comcast.com...
>

Yes, well, any questioning Pinker's authority on Marx and the solidity of an
argument that rests on two isolated quotes is not going to be set at rest by
another quote by Pinker which rests on no quotes at all. That would be
question begging on a Continental Question Deficiency Famine scale.

> The ideology of group-against-group struggle explains the similar outcomes
of
> Marxism and Nazism.

Nazism and Marxism did not have similar outcomes. Nazism existed for 12
years and ended in WWII. The East bloc existed for 70 years, and ended up
dissolving itself in favour of another option. Initially, the overthrow of
the Czar brought improvement to Russia.

Russia ending a totalitarian state brought a halt to that, its development
arrested. As a totalitarian state it espoused ideology, and much of this was
coached in a marxist jargon. This has little to do with Marx. What it has to
do with Marx is (IMO) the basic tenor of Having Found Truth, which is a
dangerous development arrester in and of itself, but falling for that is a
matter of not reading Marx with the proper philosophical qualifications, to
make a long story short.

Marx gives an explanation of aspects of history in terms of struggle between
economic groups in contrast to history as the "unfolding of reason" etc. Few
histories are written today that do not include the economic aspect; this
thought is so self-evident to us now that even diehard anticommunists forget
that Marx introduced it.
He did not have an ideology of group-against-group struggle that is similar
to that of nazism. MArx maintained that man can overcome nature - indeed,
overcoming nature is the nature of man - and may do so to further
self-determined goals like economic equality (not going into the discussion
whether e.e. is also e. justice), as far as we deem right. Hitler maintained
that groups are a natural (biological) given, and that what the "winning"
group does IS the definition of right, including what this group does to
win.

What later self-declared "marxist" totalitarians did or did not is not
important to a marxism defined as the study of questions raised by Marx,
within the limits of contemporary philosophy and science. Other definitons
of marxism are political, and do not form any basis for theoretical
discussion. Historical definitions like "Pol Pot said he was a marxist"
forces us to redefine terms like "democracy" and "justice", since e.g. Pol
Pot led what he called a Democracy based on what he called Justice; and I
think we would not like to do that.

>
> a society
> that wants the right kind of minds must control the experience

This goes for any society everywhare at any time, regardless of whether they
believed that "If the mind is structureless at birth and shaped by its
experience". Or show me a society that did not "educate the young". Or show
that educating the young does not produce effects.

Twentieth-century Marxist
> states were not just dictatorships but totalitarian dictatorships.

Clue, clue.

They tried to
> control every aspect of life: childrearing, education, clothing,
entertainment,
> architecture, the arts, even food and sex.

In our superior wisdom we live this to private enterprise, for profit ....

Authors in the Soviet Union were
> enjoined to become "engineers of human souls."

.... led by marketing people ....

T

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:kcmdnSlciPm...@edaptivity.com...

Unconvincing couple of paragraphs actually since they are like proposing that
unicorns exist with no evidence. If the paragraphs are true, therefore it shows
you are to lazy to support your argument or to conflicted and guilt ridden to
actually paste evidential material;

Saying Is Believing:
This has been called
the "saying is believing"
paradigm.

That is, dissonance theory predicts that we begin to believe our
own lies-but only if there is not abundant external justification for making
the statements that run counter to our original attitudes. Let's now
elaborate on our earlier discussion of conformity. Recall in Chapter 2 we
found that the greater the reward for compliance, the greater the
probability that a person will comply. Now we can go one step further: When
it comes to producing a lasting change in attitude, the greater the reward,
the less likely any attitude change will occur. If all I want you to do is
recite a speech favoring Fidel Castro, the Marx brothers, socialized
medicine, or anything else, the most efficient thing for me to do would be
to give you the largest possible reward. This would increase the probability
of your complying by making that speech. But suppose I have a more ambitious
goal: Suppose I want to effect a lasting change in your attitudes and
beliefs. In that case, just the reverse is true. The smaller the external
reward I give to induce you to recite the speech, the more likely it is that
you will be forced to seek additional justification for delivering it by
convincing yourself that the things you said were actually true. This would
result in an actual change in attitude rather than mere compliance. The
importance of this technique cannot be overstated. If we change our
attitudes because we have made a public statement for minimal external
justification, our attitude change will be relatively permanent; we are not
changing our attitudes because of a reward (compliance) or because of the
influence of an attractive person (identification). We are changing our
attitudes because we have succeeded in convincing ourselves that our
previous attitudes were incorrect. This is a very powerful form of attitude
change.

Thus far, we have been dealing with highly speculative material. These
speculations have been investigated scientifically in several experiments.
Among these is a classic study by Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith.
These investigators asked college students to perform a very boring and
repetitive series of tasks-packing spools in a tray, dumping them out, and
then refilling the tray over and over, or turning rows and rows of screws a
quarter turn and then going back and turning them another quarter turn. The
students engaged in these activities for a full hour. The experimenter then
induced them to lie about the task; specifically, he employed them to tell a
young woman (who was waiting to participate in the experiment) that the task
she would be performing was interesting and enjoyable. Some of the students
were offered $20 for telling the lie; others were offered only $1 for
telling the lie. After the experiment was over, an interviewer asked the
liars how much they enjoyed the tasks they had performed earlier in the
experiment. The results were clear-cut: Those students who had been paid $20
for lying - that is, for saying the spool packing and screw turning had been
enjoyable - rated the activity as dull. This is not surprising - it was
dull. But what about the students who had been paid only $1 for lying? They
rated the task as enjoyable. In other words, people who received abundant
external justification for lying told the lie but didn't believe it, whereas
those who told the lie in the absence of a great deal of external
justification moved in the direction of believing that what they said was
true.

Research support for the "saying is believing" phenomenon has extended
beyond relatively unimportant attitudes like the dullness of a monotonous
task. Attitude change has been shown on a variety of important issues. For
example, in one experiment, Arthur R. Cohen induced Yale college students to
engage in a particularly difficult form of counterattitudinal behavior.
Cohen conducted his experiment immediately after a student riot in which the
New Haven police had behaved in a rather brutal manner toward the students.
The students (who strongly believed the police had behaved badly) were asked
to write an essay in support of the actions taken by the police. They were
urged to write the strongest, most forceful defense of the police actions
they could muster. Before writing the essay, students were paid for their
efforts. There were four conditions: Some students were paid $10; others,
$5; still others, $1; and a fourth group, the paltry sum of 50 cents. After
writing his essay, each student was asked to indicate his own private
attitudes about the police actions. The results were perfectly linear: The
smaller the reward, the greater the attitude change. Thus, students who
wrote in support of the New Haven police for the meager sum of 50 cents
developed a more favorable attitude than did those who wrote the essay for
$1; the students who wrote the essay for $1 developed a more favorable
attitude toward the actions of the police than did those who wrote the essay
for $5; and those who wrote the essay for $10 remained the least favorable.
The less the external justification in terms of money, the greater the
attitude change.

Let's look at race relations and racial prejudice - surely one of our
nation's most enduring problems. Would it be possible to get people to
endorse a policy favoring a minority group - and then see if their attitudes
become more favorable toward that group? In an important set of experiments,
Mike Leippe and Donna Eisen-stadt induced white college students to write an
essay demonstrating counter-attitudinal advocacy: publicly endorsing a
controversial proposal at their university-to double the amount of funds
available for academic scholarships for African-American students. Because
the total amount of scholarship funds were limited, this meant cutting by
half the amount of funds available for scholarships for white students. As
you might imagine, this was a highly dissonant situation. How might the
students reduce dissonance? The best way would be to convince themselves
that they really believed deeply in that policy-that, taking the big picture
into consideration, it was only fair to offer more financial aid to
African-Americans. Moreover, it is reasonable to suggest that dissonance
reduction might generalize beyond the specific policy- that is, the theory
would predict that their general attitude toward African-Americans would
become more favorable and much more supportive. And that is exactly what
Leippe and Eisenstadt found.

What constitutes external justification? As I mentioned a moment ago,
external justification can and does come in a variety of forms. People can
be persuaded to say things or do things that contradict their beliefs or
preferences if they are threatened with punishment or enticed by rewards
other than monetary gain-such as praise or the desire to please.
Furthermore, most of us would consider doing something that we otherwise
wouldn't do if a good friend asked us to do it as a favor. To take a
farfetched example, suppose a friend asked you to eat an unusual food she or
he had recently learned to prepare in an "exotic foods" cooking class. And
just to make things interesting, let's say the food in question was a fried
grasshopper. Now, imagine the reverse situation-that someone you didn't like
very much asked you to sink your teeth into a fried grasshopper.

Okay, are you ready? Assuming you went ahead and ate the grasshopper, under
which circumstance do you think you would enjoy the taste of it more-when
asked to eat it by a good friend or by someone you didn't like? Common sense
might suggest that the grasshopper would taste better when recommended by a
friend. After all, a friend is someone you can trust and, hence, would be a
far more credible source of information than someone you didn't like. But
think about it for a moment: Which condition involves less external
justification? Common sense notwithstanding, the theory of cognitive
dissonance would predict that you would come to like eating grasshoppers
more if you ate one at the request of someone you didn't like.

Here's how it works: Your cognition that eating a grasshopper is repulsive
would be at odds with the fact that you just ate one. But if it was your
friend who made the request, you would have a great deal of external
justification for having eaten it-you did it as a favor for a good friend.
On the other hand, you would not have adequate external justification for
munching on a grasshopper if you did it at the request of someone you didn't
like. In this case, how could you justify your contradictory behavior to
yourself? Simple. The way to reduce dissonance would be to change your
attitude toward grasshoppers in the direction of liking them better-"Gee,
they're pretty tasty critters after all."

While this may seem a rather bizarre example of dissonance-reducing
behavior, it's not as farfetched as you might think. Philip Zimbardo and his
colleagues conducted an analogous experiment in which army reservists were
asked to try fried grasshoppers as part of a study allegedly about
"survival" foods. For half of the subjects, the request was made by a warm,
friendly officer; for the other half, it was made by a cold, unfriendly
officer. The reservists' attitudes toward eating grasshoppers were measured
before and after they ate them. The results were exactly as predicted above:
Reservists who ate grasshoppers at the request of the unpleasant officer
increased their liking for them far more than those who ate grasshoppers at
the request of the pleasant officer. Thus, when sufficient external
justification was present-when reservists complied with the friendly
officer's request-they experienced little need to change their attitudes
toward grasshoppers. They already had a convincing explanation for why they
ate them-they did it to help a "nice guy." But reservists who complied with
the unfriendly officer's request had little external justification for their
action. As a result, they adopted a more positive attitude toward eating
grasshoppers in order to rationalize their discrepant behavior.

What Is Inadequate Justification? Throughout this section, I have made
reference to situations where there is inadequate external justification and
to those with an abundance of external justification. These terms require
some additional clarification. In the Festinger-Carlsmith experiment, all of
the subjects did, in fact, agree to tell the lie-

The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/

wanky yanker

>
>

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:jyeEc.678$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...

>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> news:8vKdnZV9sNT...@comcast.com...
> >
>
> Yes, well, any questioning Pinker's authority on Marx and the solidity of an
> argument that rests on two isolated quotes is not going to be set at rest by
> another quote by Pinker which rests on no quotes at all. That would be
> question begging on a Continental Question Deficiency Famine scale.
>
>
> > The ideology of group-against-group struggle explains the similar outcomes
> of
> > Marxism and Nazism.
>
> Nazism and Marxism did not have similar outcomes. Nazism existed for 12
> years and ended in WWII. The East bloc existed for 70 years, and ended up
> dissolving itself in favour of another option. Initially, the overthrow of
> the Czar brought improvement to Russia.
>

Nazism and Marxism shared a desire to reshape humanity. "The

Pinker would probably agree with most of what you are saying. He was talking
about their views on "human nature" and human "moldability."

> T
>
>

[Immortalist]

"free" <fr...@freedom.place> wrote in message

news:40E16057...@freedom.place...

Nazism and Marxism shared a desire to reshape humanity. "The

[Immortalist]

"Nils-Erik Forsberg" <pros...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:40e0fc7e...@nntpserver.swip.net...

Some of both, nature and nurture. The instincts are expressed to the degree that
the environment requires but once expressed they are persistent throughout the
adult life.

The more knowledge gained about instinctual biases the better we can mold them to
our liking, but likely not eliminate them as Marx and Hitler seemed to want to
do.

> Nils F

[Jade]

On 29 Jun 2004 00:36:56 -0700, yitz...@lycos.com (Yitzchak Goodman)
wrote:

Many Communists, such as Trotsky, had their names changed to sound
Russian instead of Jewish. They were clearly trying to hide their
Jewishness. Many of the people on the above list could be Jews who
were just more successful at hiding the truth than others.

The Jews sing "Fiddler on the Roof". They sing about hating the
Russian Czar. It's not hard to guess which side people are on who sing
about hating the Russian Czar.

"According to Jewish researcher John Sack, "In 1945 many Poles felt
(and not
without reason) that Jews ran the Office of State Security ... the
chief of the
Office was Jacob Berman, a Jew, and all or almost all the department
heads were
Jews."

Sack reports that 75% of the officers of the Communist Secret Police
in Silesia
were Jews. He noted that many Jews in the Communist terror apparatus
in Poland
changed their names to Polish ones like General Romkowski, Colonel
Rozanski,
Capt. Studencki and Lt. Jurkowski. (cf. John Sack, The New Republic,
Feb. 14,
1994, p. 6. Sack in this article also refutes some shoddy research
performed by
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, author of Hitler's Willing Executioners, who,
in the
double standard typical of the Jewish mentality, refuses to accept the
proven
fact that Jews ran the Polish Communist secret police even as
Goldhagen asserts
the racist myth that the entire German nation was guilty of genocide.
Sack does
a good job of proving Goldhagen wrong about Poland).

In Poland, "... a disproportionate number of Communists were Jews. In
1930, at
its peak, 35% of the members of the party were Jewish. In Communist
youth
organizations, Jewish membership was even higher, while Communists of
Jewish
origin occupied most of the seats on the central committee. Communism
appealed
to some Jews because it opposed anti-Semitism more vigorously than any
other
Polish party ... Jewish Communists reached their apogee in the years
immediately
after World War Two, when the party leadership was totally in the
hands of the
prewar Communist leadership that abhorred anti-Semitism." (Sheldon
Kirshner, The
Canadian Jewish News, Nov. 5, 1992, p. 16).

Of course when one encounters the issue of Jews, Communists and
Catholics in
Poland in the Establishment media or universities today, the mass
murder of the
Polish Catholics at the hands of the Jewish Communists, is never
raised.
Instead, a minor attack on Jews by Polish peasants enraged at the role
of Jews
in Communist terror, which occurred in July, 1946 at Kielce and which
has come
to be called the "Kielce pogrom" will be the centerpiece of the
"discussion."
The motivation for the attack is not usually mentioned. Rather, the
Catholic
peasantry are painted in terms of "fiendish bigots" whose "blind,
irrational
hate" for the "poor, persecuted Jews" resulted in "yet another
martyrdom of
God's Chosen." But the Catholic Primate of Poland at the time,
Cardinal Hlond,
a brave prelate in a stalwart tradition of Christian resistance to
Jewish
tyranny in Poland, so different from the traitorous philo-Judaism of
the current
Pontiff, stated that the attack in Kielce occurred because of
resentment 'due to
the Jews who today occupy leading positions in Poland's (Communist)
government
and endeavor to introduce a governmental structure that the majority
of Poles do
not wish to have." (Ibid., Kirshner)

As Piotr S. Wandycz of Yale University observes, "The average Pole
could not but
notice in the Stalinist era that the two most powerful men in the
country-Berman
and Minc-were both Jewish as was the dreaded security official
Rozanski." (N.Y.
Review of Books, Aug. 18, 1983, p. 51).

With this record it is interesting to note that the Polish occupant of
the
papacy, John Paul II, consistently lent his prestige and his presence
to
canonizations and commemorations of politically correct victims of the
Nazis.
Nowhere did this Pope breathe a word about the openly Jewish,
Communist
massacres of Polish Catholics, Spanish Catholics, Croatian Catholics,
Lithuanian
Catholics - he was too busy, intoning the Shoah, referring to the
heirs of the
Pharisees as "our Elder Brothers in the Faith", giving official
recognition to
an Israeli state which even many orthodox, Haredi rabbis regard as a
blasphemous
and abominable entity, and attacking the German people as "the image
of the
beast."

Solomon Morel: commandant of a post-war Communist concentration camp
for Germans
in Poland. Stalin deliberately put Jews in charge of such camps.
Morel tortured
and murdered thousands of Germans, sometimes with his bare hands (cf.
"The Wrath
of Solomon", Village Voice, March 30, 1993 and John Sack, "An Eye for
an Eye").
Morel is comfortably esconsed in Tel Aviv. German survivors of
Morel's camp
have demanded he be tried as a war criminal, but for the Establishment
media and
the phony, partisan, "human rights" groups, bringing Morel to justice
is simply
a non-issue. After all, he murdered helpless Germans, so what's the
problem?"

Continued under "26 Hc. POLISH nation libel", the same date.

Dana I. Alvi <PAP...@aol.com>

Here is something the Nazis wrote:

"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."

[Jade]

[Jade]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:18:43 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5oa1e0l3ckqbl3qin...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:09:52 -0700, "Immortalist"
>> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Yes, but don't miss the main point; Hitler and Marx thought they could
>"reshape
>> >human nature" but it bit back and was not just a blank slate that anything
>could
>> >be written upon.
>>
>> When did Hitler say anything like that?
>>
>
>Would it be necessary for Hitler to say something to have tried to "reshape human
>nature?"

Hitler was for impoving human nature over the years through

eugenics. But that is not all you said before. This is what you said:

>Yes, but don't miss the main point; Hitler and Marx thought they could
>"reshape
>human nature" but it bit back and was not just a blank slate that anything
>could
>be written upon.
>

>He could try and burn all the books and people's nature would rebel and hide some
>banned reading material.

" Following a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
(10th May 1933) the nation gathered up masses
of pornographic, communist, seditious and anti-German
publications and burnt them
at public bonfires attended by enthusiastic patriots.
Interestingly Germanys student population initiated
the book burning. Thousands of university students,
fired by the ministers speech, formed a torchlight
procession and entered the Unter den Linden Square
opposite Berlin University to light bonfires which
sent the signal across Germany. "

The Michael Walsh News Desk
www.etc.com/HRP

The Americans burned the Germans books after they won the war.

>
>Totalitarian control, whether right fascist or left communist, wanted total

Here are some quote from Mein Kampf:

"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the
multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and
personal efficiency."

"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in
the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the
individual personality?"

"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might
not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless
the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the
facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the
crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics.
Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real
qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in
political life; because under these circumstances the situation does
not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of
the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will
attract them accordingly."

"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority
can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance
but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one
man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political
line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude."

"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system
to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed
deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of
nonentities who are dependant on others for their views and who can
be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each
individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according
the the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put into effect. And by
this method alone is it possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the
real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never
be brought to account for his actions."

"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone
should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man
responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the
politicians for the time being, who constituted the parlimentary
majority, were small and incompetent men or maybe even on a lower
grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for abstract
principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of the
nation."

"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for
the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and
influence in the community."

[Immortalist]

"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:b804e01c5n3oql9jh...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:18:43 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5oa1e0l3ckqbl3qin...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:09:52 -0700, "Immortalist"
> >> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes, but don't miss the main point; Hitler and Marx thought they could
> >"reshape
> >> >human nature" but it bit back and was not just a blank slate that anything
> >could
> >> >be written upon.
> >>
> >> When did Hitler say anything like that?
> >>
> >
> >Would it be necessary for Hitler to say something to have tried to "reshape
human
> >nature?"
>
> Hitler was for impoving human nature over the years through
> eugenics. But that is not all you said before. This is what you said:
>

Hitler was for improving it you say and I said he was for reshaping it, whats the
difference?

[Tim]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:16OdnZ-mNsM...@comcast.com...

Same shit as usual. Cut and paste, bark and dodge. O.K. I take it back -
your really a fat 300lb lesbian. Eagerly awaiting your next illiterate
construction and cut & paste job. Bye Bye Smokee.

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:79ydnT8N17u...@edaptivity.com...

Have a good day, do please come back when you have something to offer. Come as
you are, no special requirements from this side of the agreement to converse.

>

[Acme Diagnostics]

Thanks for an interesting perspective on Marx.

>In our superior wisdom we live this to private enterprise, for profit ....
>
>Authors in the Soviet Union were
>> enjoined to become "engineers of human souls."
>

>..... led by marketing people ....

Call it free enterprise, marketing, or capitalism depending on how you
want to load the question. I believe it works better than anything
else. All these economic philosophies seem to have liabilities in
implementation.
Wrt this one, I find two: 1) wealth tends to gravitate to a few, 2) it
requires competition, and competition tends to evaporate. But, as
opposed to alternative systems, I think these two can removed quite
easily, especially if incorporated fundamentally, as in a consitution,
etc.

Unfortunately, in the most obvious example here in the U.S., they are
not so incorporated. We have an aristocratic form of government, so
they tend to assert themselves. Two examples lately:

The U.S. was ready to break up Microsoft. But the new administration
nixed that. Competition is thus allowed to evaporate.

Income ratios of 20-1 to 40-1 are generally considered stable. In the
U.S. they rose to over 100-1 and the new administration bumped them
even higher.

It would be interesting to look at a free enterprise/market
oriented/capitalistic system where these two liabilities were
well-handled.

I figured you'd know. <g>

Larry

[Jade]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:48:29 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Hitler was for improving it you say and I said he was for reshaping it, whats the
>difference?

Hilter was for having the healthiest, the most intelligent, and the
strongest, have many children. People with serious and heriditary
defects should not have any children, though they could adopt.
It says in Mein Kampf that having the healthiest and most intelligent
people would also mean people would be more moral.

How can his plans be anything other than an improvement?

[Tim]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8q6dnZrRWeC...@comcast.com...

If and only if you promise to do the same. Remember cutting and pasting
doesn't mean you have something to say or offer. By cutting and pasting
posts and replies you remove yourself from the thinking process. You have
nothing to offer. Therefore until you can produce your own point of view
don't come back. Steeeeerike.

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:LO-dnZBWsvb...@comcast.com...

1. Whom do you quote here?
2. Its trivial to refute this false comparison phrase by phrase; but this
text is obviously using the alleged similarity as a starting point, using
every device known to rhetoric to achieve the author's aim of transferring
the odium of nazism to marxism. I should think that even for a dedicated
anti-marxist, marxism would have enough faults of its own.
3. Such similarities as there are between "liberalist" ultra-capitalism, or
fascism, and "centralist" ultra-capitalism, or pure state capitalism as in
e.g the Soviet Union, are explained by them being totalitarian. An analysis
according to Marx would be that they would have to be totalitarian in order
to be ultra-capitalist; he would then be perhpas the prime critic of such
conditions.
And then we're back to marxism, or Marxian philosophy, and "marxism" as a
label for any spurious ideology; since it is the latter which is criticized
in the text, it is not relevant to refute the text in order to defend Marx.

T

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:zrOdnZFRDoC...@edaptivity.com...

This is an absurd request. Even when someone types something of their own it
could miss the point also. I figure it is like literature and most non-fiction
literature uses quotes from other material. If you have something to complain
about it would be how I quote. But even there you have all different styles. Some
writers have long articles and then have something to say about it before or
after the block og reading and other authors slice and dice a quote and interject
here and there.

Even if, like in theis response, I chose not paste a quote, I still leave that
option open. A writer needs to know how to quote materials.

>

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:KpEEc.815$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...

>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> news:LO-dnZBWsvb...@comcast.com...
>
>
> 1. Whom do you quote here?

http://images.google.com/images?q=steven+pinker

> 2. Its trivial to refute this false comparison phrase by phrase; but this
> text is obviously using the alleged similarity as a starting point, using
> every device known to rhetoric to achieve the author's aim of transferring
> the odium of nazism to marxism. I should think that even for a dedicated
> anti-marxist, marxism would have enough faults of its own.

The distinction is between a "blank slate" where humans can learn anything vs an
instinctual "human nature" that biases what we learn and do. The claim is that
Marxism and Nazism attempt to reshape human nature as if it were a completely
blank slate on which anything can be written.

> 3. Such similarities as there are between "liberalist" ultra-capitalism, or
> fascism, and "centralist" ultra-capitalism, or pure state capitalism as in
> e.g the Soviet Union, are explained by them being totalitarian. An analysis
> according to Marx would be that they would have to be totalitarian in order
> to be ultra-capitalist; he would then be perhpas the prime critic of such
> conditions.

The author probably would not disagree with your point.

> And then we're back to marxism, or Marxian philosophy, and "marxism" as a
> label for any spurious ideology; since it is the latter which is criticized
> in the text, it is not relevant to refute the text in order to defend Marx.
>

He believed in the blank slate tabula rasa?

[Immortalist]

"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jqv5e0topnsdq2nq3...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:48:29 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Hitler was for improving it you say and I said he was for reshaping it, whats
the
> >difference?
>
> Hilter was for having the healthiest, the most intelligent, and the
> strongest, have many children. People with serious and heriditary
> defects should not have any children, though they could adopt.
> It says in Mein Kampf that having the healthiest and most intelligent
> people would also mean people would be more moral.
>
> How can his plans be anything other than an improvement?
>

I guess it all depends upon if you are stupid and ugly. But an improvement of
what the race or justice. And why should some be allowed to live if they propose
making others go extinct. Eye for and eye.

[Tim]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:DMadnXprA-M...@comcast.com...

Ha, so if your a writer write something.
Again citing material from the net or anywhere else is not a no no. But you
would fail an essay writing course or debate if you simply offered quotes
with no material of your own to tie the quote into the subject at hand. I
rarely if ever see any writing of yours. Don't get me wrong you are
obviously free to post how you choose; but, without any input of your own
you are destined to say nothing.

[Jade]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:00:21 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>I guess it all depends upon if you are stupid and ugly. But an improvement of
>what the race or justice. And why should some be allowed to live if they propose
>making others go extinct. Eye for and eye.
>

Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on October 24, 1933

"Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German
nation."

[Jade]

On 30 Jun 2004 11:18:09 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
<LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote:

>Call it free enterprise, marketing, or capitalism depending on how you
>want to load the question. I believe it works better than anything
>else. All these economic philosophies seem to have liabilities in
>implementation.

Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.

According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.

The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?

Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.

We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.

[Tron Furu]

Hi there, AD,

"So ... vee meet again....."

>
> Thanks for an interesting perspective on Marx.

Por nada. I am convinced, however, that you would find Marx himself vastly
... cosmically ... more interesting.
As for perspective, it boils down to what I think I mentioned to you in our
previous exchange, that I would like to be sure that I am understood, first;
from that point on, I'd accept any criticism, disagreement, rejection,
opposition ... as a standpoint. So also with Marx. By all means criticize,
disagree with, reject or oppose Marx, but then please criticize, disagree
with, reject or oppose _Marx_, not what someone believes or says Marx has
written.
When read without looking to embrace or reject Marx' view as a world view
and way of life, but philosophically/scientifically as a (_brilliant_)
analyst of contemporary society bent not only on criticism but also on some
positive and constructive (albeit, in retrospect, not so brilliant)
contribution to bettering any faults identified in the analysis, Marx offers
a wealth of observations and thoughts. IMHO there is little enough of that
around, so I, for one, gladly take any I can find to exercise my mind on.

Of course, it takes extra effort to be neutral on Marx (as opposed to, say,
Nicolas Cusanus. "Who?" Exactly.), since his name is identified with the
major 20. century conflict between the East and West blocs.

>
> >In our superior wisdom we live this to private enterprise, for profit
....
> >
> >Authors in the Soviet Union were
> >> enjoined to become "engineers of human souls."
> >
> >..... led by marketing people ....
>
> Call it free enterprise, marketing, or capitalism depending on how you
> want to load the question. I believe it works better than anything
> else.

Erh .... To me, that is a bit like saying that a hammer is the best tool,
since you can't pound nails with a screwdriver. It works better than
anything else at achieving X. Outside this state of affairs, one can always
question the necessity or utility of X.

Would you bear with me if I go Marx for a few lines? In volume I of "Das
Kapital" he states the definition of wealth he accepts as the best one (not
of his own making, though): disposable time after the deduction of whatever
you need to maintain yourself in the lifestyle you want. (And I must
confess, I've always liked it. I try to live it, too.) In terms of this
definition, mankind did very well without capitalism for some hundreds of
thousands of years, if one is to believe anthropolgists' claims that
hunter-gatherers spent the least time to obtain what they needed.
Looking at contemporary society, I can't see people being very happy about
being alive. On the contrary, most peoples' lives are marred by stress and a
host of anxieties. So perhaps capitalism is better at keeping people rich
while they are unhappy; perhaps it is also part of the cause of that
unhappiness. Also, capitalism may bring mankind to the brink of the fruit
fly death - drowning in our own cr*p. This is where my lines about us
indulging in every vice we criticize in tyrants, as long as somebody makes
money from it. Genocidal Eugenics? Birth control, Internet auctions of sperm
from "aryan" donors (blue eyed blonde tall guys are most in demand);
Starving people to death? Every person in the west reserves some thousand
square acres of productive land for the growing of much needed coffee, tea,
sugar and cotton - the population often starves. Medical experiments?
Performed slightly unofficially in Coutries Mistakeable For Rwanda, the
guinea pigs receiving no or ridiculously low compensation. etc.
Some might argue that this is due to industrialization, not capitalism. A
response inspired by Marx would be to point at the following conflict or
"internal contradiction": On the one hand we have a certain technological
capability; on the other hand, we do not exploit its full potential, since
the way we manage technology sometimes hinder that. Examples would be things
like the shortsightedness of financial stakeholders, never looking further t
han the next quarterly; private ownership of certain technologies (as in
patents); the enormous expenditure on marketing e.g. 127 different brands of
practically identical toothpaste, without which toothpaste might have been
cheaper. We have the means to prevent hunger, but that isn't profitable. We
have the means to wipe out diseases, but that isn't profitable, etc. etc.
The list goes on. Sharper heads than mine can come up with more and better
examples, but I think you get the drift.

IMHO it is on this level that an analysis - any analysis - can contribute to
our future wellbeing. And even people who get it wrong do contribute. They
might ask the wrong questions, or they might ask very pertinent questions,
but getting the answer wrong; forcing us to look for the better one. Anyone
who does that, is a good guy in my books.

All these economic philosophies seem to have liabilities in
> implementation.
> Wrt this one, I find two: 1) wealth tends to gravitate to a few, 2) it
> requires competition, and competition tends to evaporate.

But, as
> opposed to alternative systems, I think these two can removed quite
> easily, especially if incorporated fundamentally, as in a consitution,
> etc.

I'm not so well versed in economic theory that I could make any qualified
comment on the feasibility of this.
I'll say this much, musing on the concept of "internal contradiction" (long
live dialectics): Capitalism and the free market exist in the same uneasy
truce as our demand for common morality and the ever present temptation to
dispense with it when it comes to one's own august person. No single
stakeholder in the market truly desires competition, quite the opposite,
competition is always feared and if possible eliminated. And since there is
variation in the viability of firms, an unchecked market economy will tend
to raise one or two very big fishes in the pond once teeming with small
fry - what Marx called the tendency of capital to concentrate. So capitalism
to function requires a regulating mechanism, and the state often assumes
that agency. As such, the state, the guarantor of the collective of
companies, at the same time is the enemy of each of them individually.
Apart form this ... the ancient Romans held 12 laws to be sufficient,
leaving the rest to "fides", good faith. Without good faith, one is at
liberty to circumvent the intention, without breaking the letter of the law.
Hence, government must hasten to catch up, passing ever new laws, more
courts, judges .... lawyers .....
With every individual company regarding the state as an enemy, there is
little to restrain it from acting tactically, fides be damned. Do it to
them, as long as you don't get caught, to mangle two or more proverbs at
once. Of course a trend of law-"breaking" makes abiding by the law
unprofitable for everyone else, forcing them to abandon legality in favour
of viability, imposing additional transaction costs related to security at
every turn; a bit like someone standing up in the theatre to see better - in
the end everybody is forced to stand, and nobody sees any better than when
they were sitting down. Always excepting the Front Row, of course ...
So legislating controls, and the financial means to operate them, seems like
the only way out. The must be some sort of fides, or something performing
its function, if only the insight that posing as deaf to the spirit of the
law forces government to spell it out in ever growing volumes of letters,
and hence in the long run is counterproductive to industry. Given the
managerial attitude to "the long run", I would say the prospects are bleak
....

...

> It would be interesting to look at a free enterprise/market
> oriented/capitalistic system where these two liabilities were
> well-handled.
>
> I figured you'd know. <g>

Sorry to disappoint you, then.
I don't know if I understand what you mean, but .... permit me the immodesty
of presenting Denmark, Sweden and my own native Norway, the nations of my
own corner of the World, Scandinavia, as models of varying degrees of state
intervention in an otherwise free market economy.
Government intervention takes several forms:

- Controls of market freedom, e.g. antitrust laws, including prohibitions
against cartels, etc.
This is often a theoretical exercise, as the internal markets are too small
to support a large number of big operators in any industry; only businesses
with international markets get really (Fortune 500) big. There are numerous
examples of near-monopolies, and some outright monopsonies (/sorry to
presume, but in case you actually didn't ... : /exclusive buying rights as
opposed to monopolies' exclusive selling rights; in Norway e.g. state
monopoly on bying up grain harvests). (Near-)Monopolies are often regulated
by legislation to provide a "social profile" in the market, i.e. making sure
that services like insurance are generally affordable.

- Redistribution of wealth
A relatively high level of taxation and a fairly extensive welfare system
ensure, levelling income and reducing the gap between rich and poor. The
relative absence of poverty ensures less "friction and waste" (disease,
crime, etc. As an example, Norway has more guns per capita than the US, but
the rate of gun related crime, although increasing, is negligeable compared
to the US).
Of course there are very rich and relatively very poor people here too, but
the level of poverty is rather luxurious compared to the great majority of
nations in the world.

- Government is active as an independent operator in the market
In Norway, for example, state and county owned corporations are active in
the energy market, producing and distributing petroleum products,
electricity etc.

A lot can be said about this model (and believe me, a lot is) and its
relative merits; one indicator in favour might be the high ranking on lists
where nations are compared wrt. quality of life; IIRC, Norway has been no. 1
for two years now). Before elaborating on it, I thought I would check back
with you whether it was this you had in mind?

I guess there are other examples, but my limited horizon restricts me to the
nearest at hand. For searches elsewhere, one might perhaps focus on
countries, western nations or nations similar to them, which rarely are in
the news. Singapore? New Zealand? Germany? Canada? Italy (supposed to be a
rather peculiar economy)? Costa Rica? Czech Republic? Somebody out there
will know.

Happy hunting.

Tron

[Tron Furu]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> skrev i melding
news:FIGEc.833$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...

> Hi there, AD,
>
> "So ... vee meet again....."

Silly me ... get carried away by my own writing ... blame it on the
audience, making swine trying to serve up pearls.
What I originally set out to write, but forgot, was merely this: Are you
familiar with Lester Thurow's "The Future of Capitalism"? If not, check out
e.g. amazon book reviews and see if that is your kind of right stuff. IMHO
he had some good analyses of things like political vs. economic democracy.

T

[Yitzchak Goodman]

Jade <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9404e0hl1ulovh9sq...@4ax.com>...

[snip]

> The Jews sing "Fiddler on the Roof". They sing about hating the
> Russian Czar. It's not hard to guess which side people are on who sing
> about hating the Russian Czar.
>

If you were a smart man
Daidle deedle daidle
Daidle daidle deedle daidle dum
You wouldn't bring proofs from Fiddler on the Roof,
if you were a brainy man

You wouldn't have to goose-step
Daidle deedle daidle
Daidle daidle deedle daidle dum
You wouldn't flip those burgers for your pay
If you were a deedle daidle smart

There would be a number of real working neurons
Right in the middle of your brain
Your new keyboard wouldn't short out from drool
If you engendered some real living offspring
Little Neptune-lets and Neptune-ettes
It wouldn't be such a threat to the genetic pool . . .

http://www.geocities.com/yitzgood/

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:r_udnT-Qe9k...@comcast.com...

>
> "Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> news:KpEEc.815$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...
> >
> > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> > news:LO-dnZBWsvb...@comcast.com...
> >
> >

....

>
> The distinction is between a "blank slate" where humans can learn anything
vs an
> instinctual "human nature" that biases what we learn and do. The claim is
that
> Marxism and Nazism attempt to reshape human nature as if it were a
completely
> blank slate on which anything can be written.

I think you would have a hard time proving that the stuff the Nazis used to
mold new army recruits hasn't worked. I also think you would have a hard
time proving that Hitler wanting things to change was based on him having a
blank slate theory (other than in, perhaps, art), or that nazi teaching
methods did not account for independent properties in the human material. On
the contrary, the whole point of nazism was that certain biological races
were imprinted with the good stuff, like courage and wisdom, others with
baseness and evil.
Perhaps you should read an entire book once.

>
> He believed in the blank slate tabula rasa?

Hard to tell for me, I haven't come across neither (synonymous, btw) term in
any of the 7-8 books of Marx that I have read. I also haven't seen him
discuss child psychology to any extent. He is big on statistics of grain
production in english counties, though.
Perhaps that book should be by Marx.

T

[Acme Diagnostics]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>Hi there, AD,
>
>"So ... vee meet again....."

Courtesy of my newsreader which highlights posters, not threads.
Recall that I am a very slow thinker. I have distilled a little more
from our previous engagement, including a comment you made later
("You seem to be able to choose your battles") which was, I thought,
the best possible summary in the largest picture of circumstances, and
have become even more confident in your analytical abilities.

These types of exchanges tend to get up into the 500+ line range
without heavy snippage, so please forgive same. It is no measure of
interest in reading, but I leave only parts to which I feel I might
offer some possibly useful response.

>> Thanks for an interesting perspective on Marx.
>
>Por nada. I am convinced, however, that you would find Marx himself vastly

>.... cosmically ... more interesting.

>As for perspective, it boils down to what I think I mentioned to you in our
>previous exchange, that I would like to be sure that I am understood, first;
>from that point on, I'd accept any criticism, disagreement, rejection,
>opposition ... as a standpoint. So also with Marx. By all means criticize,
>disagree with, reject or oppose Marx, but then please criticize, disagree
>with, reject or oppose _Marx_, not what someone believes or says Marx has
>written.

I'm not really interested in criticizing Marx, nor am I qualified. I'm
an old man who has read these philosophies in my youth and remember
little. So I appreciated the synopsis, the overview, and "standpoint"
from a sane, trustworthy, and competent source who I know to have the
larger context, i.e. is informed. Just saves me a lot of time in trying
to keep up to date enough to get through some of these messages.

<snip advice on possible criticism>

>> Call it free enterprise, marketing, or capitalism depending on how you
>> want to load the question. I believe it works better than anything
>> else.
>
>Erh .... To me, that is a bit like saying that a hammer is the best tool,
>since you can't pound nails with a screwdriver. It works better than
>anything else at achieving X. Outside this state of affairs, one can always
>question the necessity or utility of X.

A tragic result of over-enthused editing! <g>

>Would you bear with me if I go Marx for a few lines? In volume I of "Das
>Kapital" he states the definition of wealth he accepts as the best one (not
>of his own making, though): disposable time after the deduction of whatever
>you need to maintain yourself in the lifestyle you want. (And I must
>confess, I've always liked it. I try to live it, too.)

Just going by your summary here, he makes a definition of happiness,
then predicates a great deal of economic theory on it. I don't agree
with that definition. It is much too simplistic, for one thing, but
which may only be the result of your necessary summarization.

<Interesting reading nevertheless>

>All these economic philosophies seem to have liabilities in
>> implementation.
>> Wrt this one, I find two: 1) wealth tends to gravitate to a few, 2) it
>> requires competition, and competition tends to evaporate.
>

> <snip> No single

>stakeholder in the market truly desires competition, quite the opposite,
>competition is always feared and if possible eliminated.

"2. Competition tends to evaporate."

>And since there is
>variation in the viability of firms, an unchecked market economy will tend
>to raise one or two very big fishes in the pond once teeming with small
>fry - what Marx called the tendency of capital to concentrate.

"1. Wealth tends to gravitate to a few." Marx agrees with me! Income
redistribution is the obvious solution. As I said, I believe income
ratios somewhere between 20-1 and 40-1 are stable.

>So capitalism
>to function requires a regulating mechanism,

Every economic system requires that. The less the better. The
supposed advantage of free enterprise is that it requires less.
Individual greed works to its advantage in some respects.

You can disagree. My POV is purely from lifelong propaganda in
the U.S. So, how can I think otherwise? But at least I know that I
cannot trust the information I receive.

>and the state often assumes
>that agency. As such, the state, the guarantor of the collective of
>companies, at the same time is the enemy of each of them individually.
>Apart form this ... the ancient Romans held 12 laws to be sufficient,
>leaving the rest to "fides", good faith.

I like that. They certainly had the right idea! Of course with their
penal system as I am familiar with it from watching B movies, people
would be highly motivated to have good faith.

>Without good faith, one is at
>liberty to circumvent the intention, without breaking the letter of the law.
>Hence, government must hasten to catch up, passing ever new laws, more
>courts, judges .... lawyers .....

That's a result of bad government, not economics. Every person's notes
become voliminous, requiring periodic simplification. A good government
conducts such periodic simplifications. (Lots of luck!) That could be
cured with one sentence in a country's constitution: "Ignorance of the
law is a perfect defense."

>With every individual company regarding the state as an enemy, there is
>little to restrain it from acting tactically, fides be damned.

In this sense, every rule in every social organization makes the
governing body the enemy. But in practice in business, one does not
view the government as the enemy, but instead the few who break the
rules as the enemy. The government is simply imperfect at catching and
punishing those few, but if they do it often enough the system works
pretty well from what I've seen.

>Do it to
>them, as long as you don't get caught, to mangle two or more proverbs at
>once. Of course a trend of law-"breaking" makes abiding by the law
>unprofitable for everyone else, forcing them to abandon legality in favour
>of viability, imposing additional transaction costs related to security at
>every turn;

Here in the U.S. nearly all follow the rules. There are reams of laws
that are not enforced, so that they really are not laws, and I'm not
counting those.

>a bit like someone standing up in the theatre to see better - in
>the end everybody is forced to stand, and nobody sees any better than when
>they were sitting down.

I haven't seen that in the three businesses I've run: residential
development, entertainment, and software. Almost everybody breaks the
same laws by just about the same amount. Everyone agrees things could
be better, but nobody will be the one to jump on the stake. E.g. since
a certain amount of lying in advertising is allowed, everyone lies by
just about that amount. Most would prefer not to lie at all, but
nobody's going to become the only truth-teller just to go out of
business. But most would favor strengthening the law to make everyone
more truthful. Again, it is inept government. More specifically, in the
U.S.
we have a disfunctional judiciary.

>Always excepting the Front Row, of course ...
>So legislating controls, and the financial means to operate them, seems like
>the only way out. The must be some sort of fides, or something performing
>its function, if only the insight that posing as deaf to the spirit of the
>law forces government to spell it out in ever growing volumes of letters,
>and hence in the long run is counterproductive to industry. Given the
>managerial attitude to "the long run", I would say the prospects are bleak

"The long run" is a very complex subject. It involves predictions on
all levels globally. Politics, economics, etc. When that becomes more
stable, people will plan ahead more. When it becomes less stable, they
run for cover. This is one thing President Clinton understood and made
work in practice.

I'm a pragmatist's pragmatist. Thus, I consider the "ignorant masses"
to be the best decision makers. As I look at our aristocracy here in
the U.S., I cannot imagine any group of humans more stupid in a
pragmatic sense (some of it is just self-serving of course), so what's
to lose? That requires democracy and a market economy. The problem is
distributing objective information to those masses. So far, that hasn't
worked too well. But information technology may be able to solve that
problem, or people might just decide they want it at some point for
some reason. That invokes the subject of religion, at least here in
the U.S., probably in a lot of places. Just to demonstrate the
complexity of the problem.

As a pragmatist, I note that there is no greater disconnect between
theory and practice than wrt politics/economics. Most
political/economic theories I've read sound wonderful. I could really
not distinguish between the wonderfulness of some of them. Then, as I
look around at various implementations, none true to the theory of
course, but using the theory at least in some part, I see a range of
unimaginable horrors. So the question for me becomes, which
unimaginable horror is a teency bit less debasing to all of humanity
than the next? Well, obviously fascism is out, and so is communism,
authoritarian systems, religious monarchies, etc., etc. What's left,
that could reasonably work given our current level of technological
advance? Probably moderate market-based democracies with moderate
redistribution of income, and government made good by participation of
average people who are objectively informed in some way, i.e. to best
bridge the disconnect between theory and practice.

>> It would be interesting to look at a free enterprise/market
>> oriented/capitalistic system where these two liabilities were
>> well-handled.
>>
>> I figured you'd know. <g>
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, then.
>I don't know if I understand what you mean, but .... permit me the immodesty
>of presenting Denmark, Sweden and my own native Norway, the nations of my
>own corner of the World, Scandinavia, as models of varying degrees of state
>intervention in an otherwise free market economy.

Those always do seem to come up. I've heard that Norway is a special
case of wealth due to an oil windfall. I've heard that welfare in
Sweden is becoming top-heavy. But they seem to remain as examples. I
wonder what the income ratios are in those countries.

<Thanks for info on Norway>

>Before elaborating on it, I thought I would check back with you whether it
>was this you had in mind?

I am specifically interested in income ratios and enforcement of
competition. Wrt competition, I wonder if any country promotes it even
at the expense of economic efficiency in the most likely industries.

>I guess there are other examples, but my limited horizon restricts me to the
>nearest at hand. For searches elsewhere, one might perhaps focus on
>countries, western nations or nations similar to them, which rarely are in
>the news. Singapore? New Zealand? Germany? Canada? Italy (supposed to be a
>rather peculiar economy)? Costa Rica? Czech Republic? Somebody out there
>will know.

Thanks for the guesses. It becomes immediately evident that there are
so many geopolitical particulars in each case to be factored out, it
would be hard to guess the benefits of my two criteria in a given case.

Obviously, this subject is not really in my intellectual focus. But I
do think about it now and then. Your perspective is interesting.

Larry

[Immortalist]

"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:u7b6e01tfenjtecqi...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:00:21 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I guess it all depends upon if you are stupid and ugly. But an improvement of
> >what the race or justice. And why should some be allowed to live if they
propose
> >making others go extinct. Eye for and eye.
> >
>
> Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on October 24, 1933
>
> "Not hatred toward other peoples, but love toward the German
> nation."

Even the stupid and ugly ones?

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:J5KEc.1023$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

The original post was Steven Pinker's opinion about where Nazisim and Marxism
were positioned along a continuum between nature and nurture, instinct and
learning. I suppose everyone has a position along that continuum whether they are
aware of it or not.

>
> T
>
>

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:TNidnVmh95N...@edaptivity.com...

Sometimes I don't do anything but paste to the point material but not that often.
Are you sure that when you click on anything I post that you aren't just breezing
through wothout looking and missing my comments. I mostly say something in a
fasion at least like comentary introductory paragraphs in books of reading.

It might be good, if my habits interest you so, to catch me in the act of what
your describing and ask why I did it.

>

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:r5idncNA1dA...@comcast.com...
>

> The original post was Steven Pinker's opinion about where Nazisim and
Marxism
> were positioned along a continuum between nature and nurture, instinct and
> learning. I suppose everyone has a position along that continuum whether
they are
> aware of it or not.

Yes, well, maybe theoretical astrophysicists do not have a position along
that continuum. Maybe for some sciences this category is not applicable. I
believe it is not applicable for political economy.

T

[Tron Furu]

Hi,

Just a quick factoid page re

> Those always do seem to come up. I've heard that Norway is a special
> case of wealth due to an oil windfall. I've heard that welfare in
> Sweden is becoming top-heavy. But they seem to remain as examples. I
> wonder what the income ratios are in those countries.
>

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/no/Economy

if you like to wade through statistics. The income ratio is somewhere quite
far down the list.
Amazing collection of facts about the world, btw.

T

[Richard F Hall]

On 27 Jun 2004 13:21:11 -0700, reanima...@yahoo.com (The
Immortalist) wrote:

>The misuse of biology by the Nazis is a reminder that perverted ideas
>can have horrifying consequences and that intellectuals have a
>responsibility to take reasonable care that their ideas not be misused
>for evil ends. But part of that responsibility is not to trivialize
>the horror of Nazism by exploiting it for rhetorical clout in academic
>catfights. Linking the people you disagree with to Nazism does nothing
>for the memory of Hitler's victims or for the effort to prevent other
>genocides. It is precisely because these events are so grave that we
>have a special responsibility to identify their causes precisely.
>
>...An idea is not false or evil because the Nazis misused it. As the
>historian Robert Richards wrote of an alleged connection between
>Nazism and evolutionary biology, "If such vague similarities suffice
>here, we should all be hus-tlea to the gallows." Indeed, if we
>censored ideas that the Nazis abused, we would have to give up far
>more than the application of evolution and genetics to human behavior.
>We would have to censor the study of evolution and genetics, period.

This has been accomplished in many academic universities, apparently,
as I have read well educated posters on the internet claim all humans
are innately equal and are strictly products of their environment. I
have long understood the reason, as stated above, for this backlash.
It is nice to see that publishers have finally begun to explore this
risky field.

RFHall
realistic idealism

[Paul Bramscher]

Of course capitalism reshapes human nature as well. Homo sapiens never
evolved to work 10-16 hour days during the Industrial Revolution among
heavy machinery, toxins, unsafe conditions in general. It also never
evolved to get up, start and stop at the ring of an alarm clock, or the
whistle of a shift beginning or ending. It never evolved to forgo all
of its freedoms when passing through the company gate. Note that this
applies to industrialized societies in general -- including, but not
specific to, capitalism.

Furthermore, it also never evolved to sit 8 hours a day in front of a
screen.

Certainly capitalism, by reducing workers and natural resources alike to
mere capital, has also worked at reshaping human nature. As well as
mother nature.

[Jade]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:43:39 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Even the stupid and ugly ones?
>

If you read Mein Kampf you would know that he didn't hate people who
he thought should be sterilized. He wanted to do what was best for the
future. He was for educating people about it. He didn't want more
blind people and others who suffer through their lives. And parents
should not want to bring more suffering in the world either.

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:vsZEc.1146$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

Then when we elect politicians or appoint judges we should care less what they
think about human nature and how far humans can change or learn?

> T
>
>

[Immortalist]

"Richard F Hall" <real...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:40e466e6...@supernews.seanet.com...

Pinker shows how in that situation the individuals with a genetic edge end up
explioting the system.

> RFHall
> realistic idealism
>

[Immortalist]

"Jade" <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1d79e0tqus2itf5e2...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:43:39 -0700, "Immortalist"
> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Even the stupid and ugly ones?
> >
> If you read Mein Kampf you would know that he didn't hate people who
> he thought should be sterilized. He wanted to do what was best for the
> future. He was for educating people about it. He didn't want more
> blind people and others who suffer through their lives. And parents
> should not want to bring more suffering in the world either.
>

We'll kill a mother fucker try that shit.

[Tim]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:W-CdnX8Xn9T...@comcast.com...

Err no thanks. You don't interest me neither do your habits (smoking, being
gay, having nothing to say, cutting and pasting).
>

[What Are The Civilian Applications?]

reanima...@yahoo.com (The Immortalist) wrote in message news:<9353ae8c.04062...@posting.google.com>...

> The ideologies, once implemented, led to atrocities in a
> few steps

Is it Pinker's contention that his way of seeing things is non-ideological?

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:ZsOdnb83fe-...@edaptivity.com...

I never even saw you start a post let alone really offer anything in these
newsgroups so fuck offf little pussy.

>

[Immortalist]

"What Are The Civilian Applications?" <wh...@righttimewrongplace.com> wrote in
message news:46a43eba.04070...@posting.google.com...

What are the necessary conditions for being non-ideological first?

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:u6OdneKy9KB...@comcast.com...

What has that got to do with what we are discussing here?

T

[Acme Diagnostics]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote:
>Hi,

>
>http://www.nationmaster.com/country/no/Economy
>
>if you like to wade through statistics. The income ratio is somewhere
>quite far down the list.
>Amazing collection of facts about the world, btw.

That's a great site. Spent about an hour there, will be a great
reference.

Income ratios not exactly what I'm used to, but just as good for
comparisons.

All of Scandinavia seems to be well ahead regarding those ratios, so
I'd say it has to be systematic and not just an oil windfall,
homogenous population, or other things one hears.

Japan seems to do very well also.

Thanks,

Larry

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:8YgFc.1291$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

The views on nature/nurture of appointent politicians and economists and what
affect this might have on their policies? Your claim was that these views have no
bearing upon political economy.

> T
>
>

[Acme Diagnostics]

The above is all true. As I said, free enterprise/capitalism left by
itself eventually gravitates wealth into the hands of a few, mostly
assisted by a lack of competition.

The U.S. is a good example of capitalism with bad government.
Everything you say seems evident, especially lately. But some other
countries seem to do much better, going by anectodal evidence and some
statistics on a great site Tron has provided. for instance Scandinavia
and Japan.

We should look at those examples and try to improve government. In
looking at these statistics, I can't help noticing life expectancy, and
also noticing that it is highest in the free-enterprise democracies.

> We have many laws that make things better for people.
>There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
>hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
>Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
>to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
>getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.

I used to be a home builder and this is untrue. The last thing home
builders want is for inspections to stop, as soon it would be very
difficult to sell a house. What they want is for corrupt inspectors to
be hung, or at least shot. <g> Homebuilders buy food too, and are glad
that it is inspected.

>Capitalism is bad for people.

I agree with that. But I say that every other system, as implemented,
is worse for people, assuming capitalism is subject to proper
government to redistribute income efficiently (i.e. the principle
sought is to allow income differences to be based solely on effort and
risk, nothing else), which I suspect would be income ratios of 20-1 or
40-1 (average CEO pay to average worker pay); also maintenance of
competition so that, for instance, Microsoft would be broken up, it
would not be allowed to offer software below cost while other companies
with better products can't do that and thus go out of business, and
other unfair trade practices.
In past times in the U.S. this was not allowed, and other things were
not allowed such as the 100-1+ income ratio which was recently bumped
even higher, and the horrors you mention for capitalism were not so
evident.
A company with a human to answer the phone would do better than a
company with a machine to answer the phone, etc., etc.

I additionally assert that a democracy will result in the smartest
government, provided the masses are given objective information. The
U.S. is no democracy, otherwise, for instance, there would be national
white lists for spam, bulk mail, and telemarketing, for the single most
obvious example.

I am not addressing imperialism here. I think that is a separate issue.

Larry

[What Are The Civilian Applications?]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<xOudnTR8HKM...@comcast.com>...

> >
> > > The ideologies, once implemented, led to atrocities in a
> > > few steps
> >
> > Is it Pinker's contention that his way of seeing things is non-ideological?
>
> What are the necessary conditions for being non-ideological first?

Deducible directly from robust experimental evidence

What ...?

[Tron Furu]

> > >
> > > Then when we elect politicians or appoint judges we should care less
what
> > they
> > > think about human nature and how far humans can change or learn?
> >
> > What has that got to do with what we are discussing here?
> >
>
> The views on nature/nurture of appointent politicians and economists and
what
> affect this might have on their policies? Your claim was that these views
have no
> bearing upon political economy.

Are we being slightly disingenious here?
I give you
- The views of politicians and "economists qua policy makers"
- The political economy (i.e. affairs of the real world)
- Political Economy (an academic discipline)
in, as it turns out, ascending order.

Obviously, somebody managing something will affect that something; hence a
politician will affect the economy, if only in such a manner as a politician
will affect an economy. That, however, is the reverse of my argument.
Now, are you claiming that the views of politicians are dervied from the
academic discipline of political economy?
And are you claiming that political economy is erected upon the basis of
opinions about the tabula rasa?

This time, it might be better for your reputation if you take your time to
find a really good quote, rather than trying to answer in your own words.

[Tim]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3d6dneZKROz...@comcast.com...

Yo smokee that's what I've been saying to you the entire time. You cut and
paste - it's you who has nothing to offer. Little pussy eh. I bet a big dike
like you would like some pussy huh. I see your approaching temper tantrum
time. Why not have a smoke smokee?

[Jade]

On 2 Jul 2004 23:23:12 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
<LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote:

>
>The above is all true. As I said, free enterprise/capitalism left by
>itself eventually gravitates wealth into the hands of a few, mostly
>assisted by a lack of competition.
>
>The U.S. is a good example of capitalism with bad government.
>Everything you say seems evident, especially lately. But some other
>countries seem to do much better, going by anectodal evidence and some
>statistics on a great site Tron has provided. for instance Scandinavia
>and Japan.
>
>We should look at those examples and try to improve government. In
>looking at these statistics, I can't help noticing life expectancy, and
>also noticing that it is highest in the free-enterprise democracies.
>
>

>I used to be a home builder and this is untrue. The last thing home
>builders want is for inspections to stop, as soon it would be very
>difficult to sell a house. What they want is for corrupt inspectors to
>be hung, or at least shot. <g> Homebuilders buy food too, and are glad
>that it is inspected.

Laws and government are supposed to make things better for people.
If there is a bad law we should get rid of it of course. But there
should be laws that protect people from getting ripped off. I didn't
say the home builders had problem with that. I said libertarians had a
problem with that.

>
>I agree with that. But I say that every other system, as implemented,
>is worse for people, assuming capitalism is subject to proper
>government to redistribute income efficiently (i.e. the principle

If it does that it is not capitalism. You shouldn't start problems
with other peoples semantics. There are enough problems as it is.

>sought is to allow income differences to be based solely on effort and
>risk, nothing else), which I suspect would be income ratios of 20-1 or
>40-1 (average CEO pay to average worker pay); also maintenance of
>competition so that, for instance, Microsoft would be broken up, it
>would not be allowed to offer software below cost while other companies
>with better products can't do that and thus go out of business, and
>other unfair trade practices.

This is beside the point. But with Microsoft everything works
together and is compatible. If we don't have the compatibility you
could get a printer or something for your computer and it would not
work, because it is designed for some other system.

>In past times in the U.S. this was not allowed, and other things were
>not allowed such as the 100-1+ income ratio which was recently bumped
>even higher, and the horrors you mention for capitalism were not so
>evident.

I totally agree with that.

>A company with a human to answer the phone would do better than a
>company with a machine to answer the phone, etc., etc.
>
>I additionally assert that a democracy will result in the smartest
>government, provided the masses are given objective information. The
>U.S. is no democracy, otherwise, for instance, there would be national
>white lists for spam, bulk mail, and telemarketing, for the single most
>obvious example.
>
>I am not addressing imperialism here. I think that is a separate issue.
>
>Larry

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com

[Acme Diagnostics]

Jade <Jade...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2 Jul 2004 23:23:12 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
><LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote:
>>
>>I agree with that. But I say that every other system, as implemented,
>>is worse for people, assuming capitalism is subject to proper
>>government to redistribute income efficiently (i.e. the principle
>
> If it does that it is not capitalism. You shouldn't start problems
>with other peoples semantics. There are enough problems as it is.

Ok. I'm no expert with the terminology. So what's the term for what I
described?

>>sought is to allow income differences to be based solely on effort and
>>risk, nothing else), which I suspect would be income ratios of 20-1 or
>>40-1 (average CEO pay to average worker pay); also maintenance of
>>competition so that, for instance, Microsoft would be broken up, it
>>would not be allowed to offer software below cost while other companies
>>with better products can't do that and thus go out of business, and
>>other unfair trade practices.
>
> This is beside the point. But with Microsoft everything works
>together and is compatible. If we don't have the compatibility you
>could get a printer or something for your computer and it would not
>work, because it is designed for some other system.

Only the operating system needs to be comptible. Microsoft controls
most application software as well, and that's the way the breakup was
to proceed IIRC. I have no problem with one company
having a monopoly on the OS, as long as the shareholders are the users
and beneficiaries. IOW, when a monopoly is the only reasonable option,
it is run by the citizens, with government as agent. There are not that
many cases where a monopoly is the only reasonable option. It doesn't
result in "big government." Governement is required for that and a list
of other things no matter what system is in place. I'm not agreeing
that one company should write the OS either. A specification could be
maintained that all companies could adhere to. Same solution as with
the insurance companies using standardized policies, but which obvious
solution is still not implemented in the U.S. due to bad government. A
democracy with objectively informed voters would solve that as well.

Larry

[Jade]

On 3 Jul 2004 15:01:47 -0500, "Acme Diagnostics"
<LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote:

>
>Ok. I'm no expert with the terminology. So what's the term for what I
>described?

Private Property, Free Enterprise

>
>Only the operating system needs to be comptible. Microsoft controls
>most application software as well, and that's the way the breakup was
>to proceed IIRC. I have no problem with one company
>having a monopoly on the OS, as long as the shareholders are the users
>and beneficiaries. IOW, when a monopoly is the only reasonable option,
>it is run by the citizens, with government as agent. There are not that
>many cases where a monopoly is the only reasonable option. It doesn't
>result in "big government." Governement is required for that and a list
>of other things no matter what system is in place. I'm not agreeing
>that one company should write the OS either. A specification could be
>maintained that all companies could adhere to. Same solution as with
>the insurance companies using standardized policies, but which obvious
>solution is still not implemented in the U.S. due to bad government. A
>democracy with objectively informed voters would solve that as well.
>

I agree with you about the Operating System.

Insurance Companies are not like normal businesses that produce
something or do actual work. They are parasites. They should be
nationalized. There should be insurance but it should not make a
profit.

[Immortalist]

"What Are The Civilian Applications?" <wh...@righttimewrongplace.com> wrote in
message news:46a43eba.04070...@posting.google.com...

I am affraid I will need a concrete example in order to meet your criteria.

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:TdxFc.1629$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

>
> > > >
> > > > Then when we elect politicians or appoint judges we should care less
> what
> > > they
> > > > think about human nature and how far humans can change or learn?
> > >
> > > What has that got to do with what we are discussing here?
> > >
> >
> > The views on nature/nurture of appointent politicians and economists and
> what
> > affect this might have on their policies? Your claim was that these views
> have no
> > bearing upon political economy.
>
>
> Are we being slightly disingenious here?
> I give you
> - The views of politicians and "economists qua policy makers"
> - The political economy (i.e. affairs of the real world)
> - Political Economy (an academic discipline)
> in, as it turns out, ascending order.
>
> Obviously, somebody managing something will affect that something; hence a
> politician will affect the economy, if only in such a manner as a politician
> will affect an economy. That, however, is the reverse of my argument.
> Now, are you claiming that the views of politicians are dervied from the
> academic discipline of political economy?
> And are you claiming that political economy is erected upon the basis of
> opinions about the tabula rasa?
>

Yes and no. It depends upon who's political economy it is.

Perhaps you should post your preferred definition of political economy before we
go prancing off into your prejudaces here.

> This time, it might be better for your reputation if you take your time to
> find a really good quote, rather than trying to answer in your own words.
>

Does anyone who hangs out in these whore mongering two bit news groups actually
care about their reputation?

>

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:XbGdneECv5X...@edaptivity.com...

What a stupid canadian fucker.

>

[Tim]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7dmdnagNiLG...@comcast.com...

Hey you forgot the link smokee. Or maybe you didn't forget maybe your just
fucking stupid and lazy. Stupid fucking yankee wanker.

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:rM2dnS4pYs4...@comcast.com...
>

> Perhaps you should post your preferred definition of political economy
before we
> go prancing off into your prejudaces here.

The plain and simple fact is that Pinker knows precious little about marxism
(and probably nazism), and that his aligning marxism and nazism is evidence
that this is so. That has got nothing to do with prejudases.

T

[Tron Furu]

Hi there,

"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinez...@partpostmark.net> skrev i melding
news:40e40ced$0$97948$45be...@newscene.com...

Lazing on a sunday afternoon ... bearing in mind that this is not your focus
area, I'll try to keep it short, non-committal (can one say that for
"superficial" in english?), looking for ways to go more general, and perhaps
extending the map of where knowledge may be sought the day one so desires.
Still, there will be the decay into a higher ratio of repetition to news;
perhaps this may turn out to be a law of Usenet discussions.

//Re-reading before posting, I see I didn't manage to keep it short. To
procure indulgences, I've tried to distinguish general comments from the
factoidal digressions in the text. HTH. //

....

> I'm not really interested in criticizing Marx

No, I meant it quite in general (general point number 1). In the case of
historical writers, there is always the aspect of the game of "Telephone";
the 20th generation of a tale may vary from the original.
OTOH, particularly in regard to the "heavy" thinkers, the reccommendation to
read them very often induces an overwhelming tiredness. In my experience, it
is, however, rewarding, in the same way that jogging, once done, gives you
some satisfaction, but is not always motivating before the fact. Also, IMHO,
a day with Plato or Kant is more like mountaineering than jogging ... lovely
view .....

(Non-general:) Closing off with Marx again, too many people do not hesitate
to discuss Marx in terms of Stalin's acts as a politician, which I
experience as discussing Gödel in terms of Internet Credit Card Fraud.
I find myself on the other side of the "What did Gödel actually
say?"-controversy from sci.logic, perhaps since philosophy is more my
specialty area. Forgive me for being the one with the professional blinkers
on this time.
.....
In volume I of "Das
> >Kapital" he states the definition of wealth he accepts as the best one
(not
> >of his own making, though): disposable time after the deduction of whatev
er
> >you need to maintain yourself in the lifestyle you want. ...
>
> Just going by your summary here, he makes a definition of happiness,
> then predicates a great deal of economic theory on it. I don't agree
> with that definition. It is much too simplistic, for one thing, but
> which may only be the result of your necessary summarization.

First of all, I misquoted. It is not in "Das Kapital" but in "Theorien über
den Mehrwert" (MEW Bd. 26.1, Berlin 1968, S. 253.). And for once I may lay
any simplicism at the door of the originator; my version is only a few
phrases shorter than the original.
(Second general point 2:) I believe we are in semantical tangles.
(Non-general application:) To mee, when Marx defines wealth, he defines
wealth, not happiness. The definition doesn't say that one is led to be or
has to be happy in that disposable time. To me it is an eminently sensible
definition of what wealth is, in that it captures that we are always working
(or saving) for something, but that at some point, we have to do that wich
all the saving or working was _for_, otherwise toil is does not become _work
for_ and self-denial does not become _saving for_. At least it makes more
sense to me than a list of posessions.
(Non-focal factoid:) Also, it is not on this definition that Marx predicates
his economic theory. That is based on his rather extensive analysis of value
which he undertook in "Das Kapital". Most economists consider his results
obsolete and partly in error. Well, it would be a pity if a theorist is not
obsolete after 150 years, and fwiw, I find it forgiveable that a pioneer
explores some blind alleys.

...

> "1. Wealth tends to gravitate to a few." Marx agrees with me!

Always a nice feeling, and also - Buy Now! - one of the rewards of actually
reading the classics. "As I said in my last post, and which you find
corroborated in Hegel's "Phänomenologie Des Geistes", Book II, A, 255-374,
this is sooo cool, dude!" etc.

> >So capitalism
> >to function requires a regulating mechanism,
>
> Every economic system requires that.

(General:) Semantics again. We need, or would have needed, to distinguish
"free market" from "laissez faire" from "capitalism" to proceed.
(Digression 1:) In your discussion with Jade, I believe he operates with a
"political science" definition of capitalism, something along the lines of a
country which is ruled and dominated by its economy sector (like the
"military-industrial complex"). This differs somewhat from the definition of
capitalism in (historical) economic theory.
(Digression 2:) Much as I dislike ad Hominems, I would find myself at fault
if I were not to mention that ... well ... following some of the links Jade
gives will, ah, give you occasion to celebrate the, erh, range of opinions
brought forth for public discussion under liberal democracy's principle of
freedom of expression ...?

> The less the better.

(The main crux:) Well, that is the point under discussion. From which point
outside of this tenet can one evaluate it? Again, not that we need do it,
but if one didn't, one would be begging the question.

The
> supposed advantage of free enterprise is that it requires less.
> Individual greed works to its advantage in some respects.

(Nitpicking:) "Better" and "advantage" indicate values. IMHO this is
incomplete without the information " .. for what?", or even the slightly
more insiduous "for whom?".
(Knowledge Base extension for those rainy days:) D.M. Hofstadter of GEB fame
has published a collection of his column in the Scientific American (?),
titled "Methamagical Thematas" (sp?). He has two discussions on sanity vs.
insanity on the level of the individual and the collective, one where
individual sanity produces collective insanity (i.e. traffic jams,
pollution, tragedy of the commons), and one where individual insanity
produces collective sanity (i.e. the invisible hand). BTW, the terms
"insanity" and "sanity" are not as inflammatory as they seem.

>
> You can disagree. My POV is purely from lifelong propaganda in
> the U.S. So, how can I think otherwise? But at least I know that I
> cannot trust the information I receive.

(Knowledge Base extension for those rainy days:) In favour of my
reccommendation of Thurow, then, I might add that he is a professor at MIT,
and basically conservative, AFAICS. Here is his cyberhome:
http://www.lthurow.com/ .

>
> >and the state often assumes
> >that agency. As such, the state, the guarantor of the collective of
> >companies, at the same time is the enemy of each of them individually.
> >Apart form this ... the ancient Romans held 12 laws to be sufficient,
> >leaving the rest to "fides", good faith.

(Factoidology:) My main point here is people's realtion to the rules that
be. Are these held by people? Do people follow them because they think they
are right? Or are they not held by people (but by e.g. "the government")? Do
people do what they can to not follow them, either as (stupid) criminals or
as (clever) operators spending 8 % of revenues on a staff of expert tax
lawyers permanently engaged in searching for and exploiting loopholes?

>
> I like that. They certainly had the right idea! Of course with their
> penal system as I am familiar with it from watching B movies, people
> would be highly motivated to have good faith.

(Factoidology:) For economic ruin, the consequence was usually to be sold
into slavery.
A solution to the Enron scandal?

>
> >Without good faith, one is at
> >liberty to circumvent the intention, without breaking the letter of the
law.
> >Hence, government must hasten to catch up, passing ever new laws, more
> >courts, judges .... lawyers .....
>
> That's a result of bad government, not economics.

I beg to differ. To me, this kind of inflation of government is a result of
people not having "fides", but trying to outwit the government. An outwitted
government is, of course, an inefficient and hence a bad government - but
that is after the fact, so to speak.

...

> In this sense, every rule in every social organization makes the
> governing body the enemy. But in practice in business, one does not
> view the government as the enemy, but instead the few who break the
> rules as the enemy.

To the degree that one intends to follow the rules oneself, obviously. But
then one has, IMHO, "fides".

Of course, anger at law benders would also be found with those _restricted_
to following the rules; and then it might be envy.

The government is simply imperfect at catching and
> punishing those few, but if they do it often enough the system works
> pretty well from what I've seen.

Enron?

>
Isn't this ...

> >a bit like someone standing up in the theatre to see better - in
> >the end everybody is forced to stand, and nobody sees any better than
when
> >they were sitting down.

... the mirror image of ...

"Most would prefer not to lie at all, but
> nobody's going to become the only truth-teller just to go out of
> business."

... or do I misunderstand the example?

...

But most would favor strengthening the law to make everyone
> more truthful. Again, it is inept government.

Ah, but isn't this "leaving it up to the government to fix it"?
Somewhere, someone is not having "fides".
How "free market" is "leaving it up to the government to fix it"? It
coincides well, I feel, with my view; it might not with an extreme (and for
that reason less interesting) laissez faire advocate.
(Digression:) But the proverbial "rotten apple" is mostly a matter of what
can be practically achieved. In some self-regulating businesses (like the
diamond industry, where million dollar values are exchanged on the security
of a man's word), not following the rules would eliminaty you from the
business. But not all businesses are that small (=transparent), and so
roving scavengers may thrive.

....>
> "The long run" is a very complex subject. It involves predictions on
> all levels globally. Politics, economics, etc. When that becomes more
> stable, people will plan ahead more. When it becomes less stable, they
> run for cover.

And that is even only calculating for profit. I also meant to include goals
besides (perhaps above) profit, i.e. "the wider picture" of what profit is
for. How do we turn profit into wealth?

> I'm a pragmatist's pragmatist. Thus, I consider the "ignorant masses
..."/... ./(agree, agree...)

...But information technology may be able to solve that
> problem, or people might just decide they want it at some point for
> some reason. That invokes the subject of religion, at least here in
> the U.S.,

??? Information technology invokes religion? A new one to me. I'd be curious
to know more, even only a line or two.

> As a pragmatist, I note that there is no greater disconnect between
> theory and practice than wrt politics/economics. Most
> political/economic theories I've read sound wonderful. I could really
> not distinguish between the wonderfulness of some of them.

Ooh, the epee of irony! I'll gladly take a norwegian franchise on that set
of phrases.

Then, as I
> look around at various implementations, none true to the theory of
> course, but using the theory at least in some part, I see a range of
> unimaginable horrors. So the question for me becomes, which
> unimaginable horror is a teency bit less debasing to all of humanity
> than the next? Well, obviously fascism is out, and so is communism,
> authoritarian systems, religious monarchies, etc., etc. What's left,
> that could reasonably work given our current level of technological
> advance? Probably moderate market-based democracies with moderate
> redistribution of income, and government made good by participation of
> average people who are objectively informed in some way, i.e. to best
> bridge the disconnect between theory and practice.

All this sounds right.
I fear, however, that most people restrict their outlook to how our free
market works for us in the West, without including how our free market in
the west works for the rest of the world. In one sense, we perpetrate a
small Holocaust every day (I think about 30 000 people die of hunger every
day, of which about 5 000 are children) for the sake of our tea, coffee,
cocoa and sugar - with the big baddie being cotton for ever cheaper
fashions. If that is a teensy bit less debasing to all of humanity, it must
be because we do not actually get our hands bloody. And perhaps fashion is a
worthier goal than world domination. Somebody should ask the starving, I
guess.

> I am specifically interested in income ratios and enforcement of
> competition. Wrt competition, I wonder if any country promotes it even
> at the expense of economic efficiency in the most likely industries.

Enron?
I am way out of my area of actual knowledge here, and can only serve you
guesses. But IIRC Friedman-Thatcher-Reagon economy consists of privatizing
("for the sake of comptetition", in the worst case the choice between which
old schoolmate gets that contract) public goods which also might have been
administered publicly. In some cases there might have been gains (lower
prices); but I think the cases where privatization and competition has given
the public worse service at higher prices, less stability, employment cuts,
workplace exports etc. are ... well, not uncommon.
If this fits your bill, perhaps you could look at the US energy sector, UK
broadcasting .... Somebody else will know.

I have taken enough of your time; I hope some of it at least was worthwile.
I'm open to anything you might see a need to clarify or discuss, but none of
the above ramblings merit much more effort. Like i said, it is sunday. It's
raining, too. ("Why do people strive for eternal life, when they don't know
what to do to pass a rainy sunday?" Can't remember who said it, though.)
May the sun shine where you are, then.

Regards,

Tron

[Immortalist]

"Tim" <nos...@n.nz> wrote in message

news:Ou-dnRbbdoC...@edaptivity.com...

What a waste of time

>

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:jWTFc.1305$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...

What does Pinker know about marxism? Do you have a link or source to back this
up?

> T
>
>
>

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:rrOdnSQ0wNs...@comcast.com...

>
>
> What does Pinker know about marxism? Do you have a link or source to back
this
> up?
>

The ideology of group-against-group struggle explains the similar outcomes
of
Marxism and Nazism. The ideology of the Blank Slate helps explain some of
the
features that were unique to the Marxist states:

If people do not differ in psychological traits like talent or drive, then
anyone
who is better off must be avaricious or larcenous (as I mentioned earlier).
Massive killing of kulaks and "rich" or "bourgeois" peasants was a feature
of
Lenin's and Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

If the mind is structureless at birth and shaped by its experience, a
society
that wants the right kind of minds must control the experience ("It is on a
blank
page that the most beautiful poems are written"). Twentieth-century Marxist
states were not just dictatorships but totalitarian dictatorships. They
tried to
control every aspect of life: childrearing, education, clothing,
entertainment,
architecture, the arts, even food and sex. Authors in the Soviet Union were
enjoined to become "engineers of human souls." In China and Cambodia,
mandatory
communal dining halls, same-sex adult dormitories, and the separation of
children
from parents were recurring (and detested) experiments.

If people are shaped by their social environments, then growing up bourgeois
can
leave a permanent psychological stain ("Only the newborn baby is spotless").
The
descendants of landlords and "rich peasants" in postrevolutionary regimes
bore a
permanent stigma and were persecuted as readily as if bourgeois parentage
were a
genetic trait. Worse, since parentage is invisible but discoverable by third
parties, the practice of outing people with a "bad background" became a
weapon of
social competition. That led to the atmosphere of denunciation and paranoia
that
made life in these regimes an Orwellian nightmare.

If there is no human nature leading people to favor the interests of their
families over "society," then people who produce more crops on their own
plots
than on communal farms whose crops are confiscated by the state must be
greedy or
lazy and punished accordingly. Fear rather than self-interest becomes the
incentive to work.

Most generally, if individual minds are interchangeable components of a
superorganic entity called society, then the society, not the individual, is
the
natural unit of health and well-being and the proper beneficiary of human
striving. The rights of the individual person have no place.

None of this is meant to impugn the Blank Slate as an evil doctrine, any
more
than a belief in human nature is an evil doctrine. Both are separated by a
great
many steps from the wicked acts committed under their banners, and they must
be
evaluated on factual grounds. But it is meant to overturn the simplistic
linkage
of the sciences of human nature with the moral catastrophes of the twentieth
century. That glib association stands in the way of our desire to understand
ourselves, and it stands in the way of the imperative to understand the
causes of
those catastrophes. All the more so if the causes have something to do with
a
side of ourselves we do not fully understand.

The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/

T

[Immortalist]

Hitler was undeniably influenced by the bastardized versions of
Darwinism and genetics that were popular in the early decades of the
twentieth century, and he specifically cited natural selection and the
survival of the fittest in laying out his poisonous doctrine. He
believed in an extreme Social Darwinism in which groups were the unit
of selection and a struggle among groups was necessary for national
strength and vigor. He believed that the groups were constitutionally
distinct races, that their members shared a distinctive biological
makeup, and that they differed from one another in strength, courage,
honesty, intelligence, and civic-mindedness. He wrote that the
extinction of inferior races was part of the wisdom of nature, that
the superior races owed their vitality and virtue to their genetic
purity, and that the superior races were in danger of being degraded
by interbreeding with the inferior ones. He used these beliefs to
justify his war of conquest and his genocide of Jews, Gypsies, Slavs,
and homosexuals.

The misuse of biology by the Nazis is a reminder that perverted ideas
can have horrifying consequences and that intellectuals have a
responsibility to take reasonable care that their ideas not be misused
for evil ends. But part of that responsibility is not to trivialize
the horror of Nazism by exploiting it for rhetorical clout in academic
catfights. Linking the people you disagree with to Nazism does nothing
for the memory of Hitler's victims or for the effort to prevent other
genocides. It is precisely because these events are so grave that we
have a special responsibility to identify their causes precisely.

...An idea is not false or evil because the Nazis misused it. As the
historian Robert Richards wrote of an alleged connection between
Nazism and evolutionary biology, "If such vague similarities suffice
here, we should all be hus-tlea to the gallows." Indeed, if we
censored ideas that the Nazis abused, we would have to give up far
more than the application of evolution and genetics to human behavior.
We would have to censor the study of evolution and genetics, period.

...though both Nazi and Marxist ideologies led to industrial-scale
killing, their biological and psychological theories were op-posites.
Marxists had no use for the concept of race, were averse to the notion
of genetic inheritance, and were hostile to the very idea of a human
nature rooted in biology. Marx and Engels did not explicitly embrace
the doctrine of the Blank Slate in their writings, but they were
adamant that human nature has no enduring properties. It consists only
in the interactions of groups of people with their material
environments in a historical period, and constantly changes as people
change their environment and are simultaneously changed by it. The
mind therefore has no innate structure but emerges from the
dialectical processes of history and social interaction.

...The new realization that government-sponsored mass murder can come
from an anti-innatist belief system as easily as from an innatist one
upends the postwar understanding that biological approaches to
behavior are uniquely sinister. An accurate appraisal of the cause of
state genocides must look for beliefs common to Nazism and Marxism
that launched them on their parallel trajectories, and for the beliefs
specific to Marxism that led to the unique atrocities committed in its
name. A new wave of historians and philosophers is doing exactly that.

Nazism and Marxism shared a desire to reshape humanity. "The
alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary," wrote Marx; "the will
to create mankind anew" is the core of National Socialism, wrote
Hitler. They also shared a revolutionary idealism and a tyrannical
certainty in pursuit of this dream, with no patience for incremental
reform or adjustments guided by the human consequences of their
policies. This alone was a recipe for disaster. As Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago, "Macbeth's
self-justifications were feeble-and his conscience devoured him. Yes,
even lago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual
strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses.
Because they had no ideology"

The ideological connection between Marxist socialism and National
Socialism is not fanciful. Hitler read Marx carefully while living in
Munich in 1913, and may have picked up from him a fateful postulate
that the two ideologies would share. It is the belief that history is
a preordained succession of conflicts between groups of people and
that improvement in the human condition can come only from the victory
of one group over the others. For the Nazis the groups were races; for
the Marxists they were classes. For the Nazis the conflict was Social
Darwinism; for the Marxists, it was class struggle. For the Nazis the
destined victors were the Aryans; for the Marxists, they were the
proletariat. The ideologies, once implemented, led to atrocities in a
few steps: struggle (often a euphemism for violence) is inevitable and
beneficial; certain groups of people (the non-Aryan races or the
bourgeoisie) are morally inferior; improvements in human welfare
depend on their subjugation or elimination. Aside from supplying a
direct justification for violent conflict, the ideology of intergroup
struggle ignites a nasty feature of human social psychology: the
tendency to divide people into in-groups and out-groups and to treat
the out-groups as less than human. It doesn't matter whether the
groups are thought to be defined by their biology or by their history.
Psychologists have found that they can create instant intergroup
hostility by sorting people on just about any pretext, including the
flip of a coin.

...As Marx put it:

All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.

Circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and
intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines
their consciousness.

In a foreshadowing of Durkheim's and Kroeber's insistence that individual human
minds are not worthy of attention, Marx wrote:

Man is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world. Man is the world of
men, the State and Society. The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in
each particular individual. The real nature of man is the totality of social
relations.

Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of
economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class
interests.

[Death] seems to be a harsh victory of the species over the particular individual
and to contradict their unity. But the particular individual is only a particular
species-being, and as such mortal.

Marx's twentieth-century followers did embrace the Blank Slate, or at least the
related metaphor of malleable material. Lenin endorsed Nikolai Bukharin's ideal
of "the manufacturing of Communist man out of the human material of the
capitalist age." Lenin's admirer Maxim Gorky wrote, "The working classes are to
Lenin what minerals are to the metallurgist" and "Human raw material is
immeasurably more difficult to work with than wood" (the latter while admiring a
canal built by slave labor). We come across the metaphor of the blank slate in
the writings of a man who may have been responsible for sixty-five million
deaths:

A blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful
words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted
on it.
--Mao Zedong

And we find it in a saying of a political movement that killed a quarter of its
countrymen:

Only the newborn baby is spotless.
--Khmer Rouge slogan

The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/

-----------------

http://www.kimyx.com/images/hitler.JPG
http://www.alba.nu/mansnummer9/Images/hitler.gif
http://giraf.online.kherson.ua/fest/pesh/marx.jpg
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/marx.jpg
http://www.akademie-verlag.de/journals/2249/kontrov/marx-gr.gif

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:a8mdnWGELYm...@comcast.com...
...

> The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature
> Steven Pinker
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1086630363/

Thank you. Even more proof.

T

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:n0YFc.1968$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

I wouldn't claim that Pinker is an expert on Marxism. But for the points he is
making about nature vs nurture and their relation to political philosophies, he
knows enough.

> T
>
>
>

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:2s6dnffTUOm...@comcast.com...

Yes, you are right.
He knows exactly enough to make the points he is making.

T

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:r3ZFc.1375$v04....@news2.e.nsc.no...

I wouldn't know how to determine exactly how much he knows about the subject. He
passed the criteria of the editor of the book, he became a professor in college,
and he made it in america after moving from canada.

But in your opinion what would Marx's position be in favor of, nature or nurture
or some combination of both?

> T
>
>

[What Are The Civilian Applications?]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<z_GdnZMnjMg...@comcast.com>...

> > > > > The ideologies, once implemented, led to atrocities in a
> > > > > few steps
> > > >
> > > > Is it Pinker's contention that his way of seeing things is non-ideological?
> > >
> > > What are the necessary conditions for being non-ideological first?
> >
> > Deducible directly from robust experimental evidence
> >
> > What ...?
>

> I am afraid I will need a concrete example in order to meet your criteria.

I know of no instance that qualifies.

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:K6WdncfsPZQ...@comcast.com...

>
>
> But in your opinion what would Marx's position be in favor of, nature or
nurture
> or some combination of both?

IIRC the closest Marx comes to discussing this, is to claim that man nowhere
lives in circumstances that are only attributable to his "original nature"
(being aware that he did not have access to studying that original nature),
but to man's adaptation to his environment, and man's adaptation of his
environment to himself. I don't now if that brings him down on the nurture
side in your books.
What complicates the whole is of course the circumstance that the definition
of the nature of man being the animal that creates culture contains a
twisted loop; man's nature is to overcome nature, i.e. man's nature is
non-natural; that sort of self-referent paradox can produce all sorts of
twists and unexpected turns. Also gives a lot of argumentative back-doors
...

T

[Nils-Erik Forsberg]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:27:29 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Nils-Erik Forsberg" <pros...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>news:40e0fc7e...@nntpserver.swip.net...
>> It is a good overview of globally spread and practised 'non innate and
>> non durable structured property' I think.
>>
>> The most urgent question to answer is - what is the way out of the
>> misery that follow such thinking?
>>
>> How is the human nature?
>>
>> Durable and innate structured or not?
>>
>
>Some of both, nature and nurture. The instincts are expressed to the degree that
>the environment requires but once expressed they are persistent throughout the
>adult life.
>
>The more knowledge gained about instinctual biases the better we can mold them to
>our liking, but likely not eliminate them as Marx and Hitler seemed to want to
>do.

What did Marx and Hitler think about life?

Nils F

[Immortalist]

"Nils-Erik Forsberg" <pros...@swipnet.se> wrote in message

news:40e9030c...@nntpserver.swip.net...

Many things like most people, I mean they weren't retarded or anything.

> Nils F

[Immortalist]

"What Are The Civilian Applications?" <wh...@righttimewrongplace.com> wrote in
message news:46a43eba.04070...@posting.google.com...

THen do you know any that are soft like Jello?

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:H%8Gc.2040$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

But these are all quotes from Marx;

...As Marx put it:

All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.

Circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and
intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines
their consciousness.

In a foreshadowing of Durkheim's and Kroeber's insistence that individual human
minds are not worthy of attention, Marx wrote:

Man is not an abstract being, squatting outside the world. Man is the world of
men, the State and Society. The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in
each particular individual. The real nature of man is the totality of social
relations.

Individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of
economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class
interests.

[Death] seems to be a harsh victory of the species over the particular individual
and to contradict their unity. But the particular individual is only a particular
species-being, and as such mortal.

------------------------

>
> T
>
>

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:lNOdnSz636o...@comcast.com...

>
> "Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
>

> But these are all quotes from Marx;

Indeed they are. So? None of them are about evolutionary psychology or
neurology or genetics.
All of them accord with my statement that Marx sees transformation of nature
as man's ultimate nature.

You'd make it a lot easier if you used the "prosecution"-technique of
actually including a statement of what you believe the evidence shows. Now
it is anyone's guess.

T

[Immortalist]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message

news:hhgGc.2093$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> news:lNOdnSz636o...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
> >
> > But these are all quotes from Marx;
>
> Indeed they are. So? None of them are about evolutionary psychology or
> neurology or genetics.
> All of them accord with my statement that Marx sees transformation of nature
> as man's ultimate nature.
>
> You'd make it a lot easier if you used the "prosecution"-technique of
> actually including a statement of what you believe the evidence shows. Now
> it is anyone's guess.
>

Pinker is of the opinion that Marx and most liberals believe wrongly that humans
can learn anything. Personally I don't care.

[What Are The Civilian Applications?]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<koednaKe-PD...@comcast.com>...

> > > > > > > The ideologies, once implemented, led to atrocities in a
> > > > > > > few steps
> > > > > > Is it Pinker's contention that his way of seeing things is
> > > > > > non-ideological?

> > > > > What are the necessary conditions for being non-ideological?

> > > > Deducible directly from robust experimental evidence

> > > I am afraid I will need a concrete example in order to meet your criteria.
> > I know of no instance that qualifies.

> [jocularity]

I'll rephrase. Does Pinker make an assessment anywhere of his own ideology?

[Tron Furu]

"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding

news:M9SdnV6B28t...@comcast.com...
>

...

> > You'd make it a lot easier if you used the "prosecution"-technique of
> > actually including a statement of what you believe the evidence shows.
Now
> > it is anyone's guess.

If you would bear with me ... I think this is the point that activates your
more or less benevolent critics here in this newsgroup. I am tempted to ask
you the above re the thread you opened on Dialectics. You present a lot of
data, but they do not form the support basis for any proposition. As it is,
it is hard to see your posts as invitations to a dialogue, as there is no
"conversation" to respond to, unless one wants to get into a criticism of
sources (as in this thread) or a discussion of the actual wording of the
data, which again is best done to a certain purpose; without such a purpose,
one has no parameter to decide which version is "better" than any other.
Please take this as analysis, not personal criticism. Perhaps you pursue
goals i haven't been able to identify.

>Personally I don't care.

Fair enough. I hope you see that I don't expect you to have that burning
heart for every topic in the history of philosophy; merely that you present
some problematization in your presentations.

> >
>
> Pinker is of the opinion that Marx and most liberals believe wrongly that
humans
> can learn anything.

OK. That is Pinker's opinion, and he is entitled to his opinion. I am not
that well read in Marx - I have read 7 - 8 works, including "Das Kapital",
out of his corpus, which at present is somewhere around 50 - 60 volumes -
but enough to see that Pinker's style of quoting is too selective to capture
Marx's own project, and to see that most of these quotes are taken out of
context. I (hope I) have enough academic training to see that the wording in
the quotes is so vague as to support a variety of interpretations, not only
the one Pinker gives them - hence Pinker would have to argue for his
interpretations, which he does not - and to see that the edifice of
conclusions he erects thereupon is far heavier than that flimsy basis will
support.

As to the exact wording "that humans can learn anything", the connection to
the blank slate theory is a matter of precise semantics, namely the
semantics of "learn". If learning means establishing a layer of trained
behaviour on top of instinctual behaviour, history is an indicator that we
still do not know the limits of this process. If to learn means to reshape
human nature, i.e. changing the content of our instinctual behaviour, I
believe only the Behaviourists had any theory that permitted them to believe
that this was possible, as the content of our inner life, according to them,
was the sum of all operant conditioning. The root of the discussion, as
always, goes back to the ancient Greeks, who, first of all, invented the
concept we call "nature" (try to define it ...), and then, being Greeks,
couldn't agree to what the nature of Man was like: was it precious
substance, to be polluted and decayed by the overlay of civilization's smog
(Plato to Rousseau ... Noble Savage ...) or was it a raw material to be
purefied, increased and shaped by Culture (Aristotle and all the others)?

The Blank Slaters are rarely people who work in genetics. And even before
science brings in answers, one needs to address the problems; that is called
making decisions under uncertainty. The Blank Slaters generally hold that
man's innate nature is rudimentary, like little toes, appendices
(appendixes?) or wisdom teeth, and that our behaviour as a consequence is
infinitely malleable. This is somewhat true, at least when we compare man to
the rest of the animal kingdom, the "somewhat" being necessitated by the
"infinitely" - problematic, as all unrestricted and unreserved universal
claims will be.

Generally, people out to change need to establish an ontology where change
is possible, or an improvement (hence nature must be "deficient", or at
least not the last word: engineers of all industies). People not interested
in change will want to establish an ontology where change is not possible,
or a deviation (hence nature is "optimal", or the last word: lawyers and
administrators). To the degree that such ontological positions are a)
expressions of a position in a power struggle and b) are not in accord with
reality, they are ideological, i.e. the effort to present the arbitrary as
necessary, the accidental as the essential, something we could solve better
as already at the peak of development. That, of course, goes both ways.

But the geneticists tend to be popularized in a way that seems to support so
much of, say, what Americans believe traditional American values to be -
soon it will be a genetic trait to watch "Friends" - which to others is
non-applicable to the wide variety of cultures across time and space.
Therefore it is easy to suspect this science being hijacked by people with
an agenda. Of course the criticism should not be directed at science, but at
over-interpretations of scientific results that serve an ideological
function. The final complication is of course that even people who work in
science - scientists - may be the source of such distortions, to the degree
that their reports overstate the actual findings. To investigate that is
legitimate.

T

[Nils-Erik Forsberg]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 09:29:37 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Nils-Erik Forsberg" <pros...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>news:40e9030c...@nntpserver.swip.net...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:27:29 -0700, "Immortalist"
>> <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Nils-Erik Forsberg" <pros...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
>> >news:40e0fc7e...@nntpserver.swip.net...
>> >> It is a good overview of globally spread and practised 'non innate and
>> >> non durable structured property' I think.
>> >>
>> >> The most urgent question to answer is - what is the way out of the
>> >> misery that follow such thinking?
>> >>
>> >> How is the human nature?
>> >>
>> >> Durable and innate structured or not?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Some of both, nature and nurture. The instincts are expressed to the degree
>that
>> >the environment requires but once expressed they are persistent throughout the
>> >adult life.
>> >
>> >The more knowledge gained about instinctual biases the better we can mold them
>to
>> >our liking, but likely not eliminate them as Marx and Hitler seemed to want to
>> >do.
>>
>> What did Marx and Hitler think about life?
>>
>
>Many things like most people, I mean they weren't retarded or anything.

So that means Marx and Hitler where supported by most people
concerning life.

See the disturbing development results. Retarded thinking about life?

What is that way of practised valuing named with one word?

Nils F

[Tron Furu]

"Tron Furu" <tron...@frisurf.no> skrev i melding
news:mAxGc.2198$Mq3....@news4.e.nsc.no...

>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> news:M9SdnV6B28t...@comcast.com...
> >

....

I think that this ...

>
> OK. That is Pinker's opinion, and he is entitled to his opinion.

/....../the edifice of

> conclusions he erects thereupon is far heavier than that flimsy basis will
> support.

... is what the poster "What is the Civilian application?" is after:
Has Pinker elucidated his own potential background bias? Or is he "pure
science"?

T