Muhammad Ali and the white liberals

[RH]

Muhammad Ali and the white liberals

Robert Henderson

The death of the boxer Joe Frazier has given widespread publicity to
the toxically derogatory remarks made about Frazier by Muhammad Ali.
But Ali’s was no common or garden abuse for it included comments which
were unashamedly racist. Here are a few :

“Joe Frazier is an Uncle Tom. He works for the enemy. This was said
when Ali criticised Frazier for having a white management team. ”
Frazier emphatically replied to this with ”A white lawyer kept him
out of jail. And he’s going to Uncle Tom me….”

“He’s the other type Negro, he’s not like me… “There are two types of
slaves, Joe Frazier’s worse than you to me … That’s what I mean when I
say Uncle Tom, I mean he’s a brother, one day he might be like me, but
for now he works for the enemy”…

“Joe Frazier should give his face to the Wildlife Fund. He’s so ugly,
blind men go the other way. Ugly! Ugly! Ugly! He not only looks bad,
you can smell him in another country! What will the people of Manila
think? That black brothers are animals.Ignorant. Stupid. Ugly and
smelly.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/08/muhammad-ali-joe-frazier?newsfeed=true

Comments such as these were especially ungenerous because Frazier had
given Ali money while he was banned from boxing and supported the
return top boxing.

Compare those words with Ali’s supposed comment on Frazier’s death:

“The world has lost a great champion. “I will always remember Joe with
respect and admiration. My sympathy goes out to his family and loved
ones.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/8875841/
Muhammad-Ali-mourns-the-loss-of-a-great-champion-following-death-of-
Joe-Frazier.html). Somehow one doubts those were Ali’s words, not
least because his faculties are, judged by his rare public
appearances, now very limited.

Since the last of the Frazier fights in 1975 , Ali has supposedly
excused his abuse by saying they were simply to sell his fights with
Frazier. I say supposedly because these claims have come since he
began to suffer from Parkinson’s disease which was probably in the
late 1970s when his interviews began to lose their fluency and
vitality (see his 1981 appearance on Parkinson when he was clearly
finding it difficult to answer clearly and slurring was evident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nI_5AoHvc&feature=related), although
he was not diagnosed until 1984 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/
lifeandstyle/2009/mar/20/parkinsons-disease-muhammad-ali).

But even if Ali has been mentally capable of making and understanding
his rebuttals of his own words, there is the inconvenient fact (for
Ali and his admirers) of his many (by the liberal
definition of racism) categorically racist utterances when he was a
member of the Nation of Islam. These included:

‘We who follow the teachings of Elijah Muhammad don’t want to be
forced to integrate. Integration is wrong. We don’t want to live with
the white man; that’s all.’

“No intelligent black man or black woman in his or her right black
mind wants white boys and white girls coming to their homes to marry
their black sons and daughters.’

‘Why don’t we get out and build our own nation? White people just
don’t want their slaves to be free. That’s the whole thing. Why not
let us go and build ourselves a nation? We want a country. We’re 40
million people, but we’ll never be free until we own our own land.’

‘We’re not all brothers. You can say we’re brothers, but we’re
not.’ (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1072751,00.html)


Read more at
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/muhammad-ali-and-the-white-liberals/

[saracene]

On Nov 9, 10:44 pm, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> ‘We who follow the teachings of Elijah Muhammad don’t want to be
> forced to integrate. Integration is wrong. We don’t want to live with
> the white man; that’s all.’
>
> “No intelligent black man or black woman in his or her right black
> mind wants white boys and white girls coming to their homes to marry
> their black sons and daughters.’
>
> ‘Why don’t we get out and build our own nation? White people just
> don’t want their slaves to be free. That’s the whole thing. Why not
> let us go and build ourselves a nation? We want a country. We’re 40
> million people, but we’ll never be free until we own our own land.’
>
> ‘We’re not all brothers. You can say we’re brothers, but we’re
> not.’ (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1072751,00.html)
>

> Read more athttp://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/muhammad-ali-and-th...

Ali was always liked in England. HIs dislike of racial mixing found
many sympathetic echoes back in the sixties.

[Topaz]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:44:49 -0800 (PST), RH <anywh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>“No intelligent black man or black woman in his or her right black
>mind wants white boys and white girls coming to their homes to marry
>their black sons and daughters.’
>
>‘Why don’t we get out and build our own nation?

You are a White liberal if you don't agree with the above.


"Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE
problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the
third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white
countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan,
but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by
bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote
with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY
white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e.,
intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem
would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were
brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a
RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK
problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and
what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of
genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable
conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[B J Foster]

On 11/11/2011 1:03 PM, Topaz wrote:
>> ‘Why don’t we get out and build our own nation?
> You are a White liberal if you don't agree with the above.

It doesn't make sense to build a nation of morons

[Topaz]

We need to preserve the White race. That means we need to have a
nation for White people. White nationalists and Black nationalists are
on the same page. Race mixers are the problem.


Here is a quote from "The Eleventh Hour" by John Tyndall. (Torries
are like the Republicans in the USA)

"Exactly the same bogus argument between left and right has at
intervals been conducted concerning the question of race in Britain.
Mindful again of the strong public feeling there is against the
attempt to make Britain a multi-racial society, the Torries and their
press have contrived to present themselves in and entirely false
position on this issue by picking on some of the more ludicrous
statements and actions of their opponents and loudly condemning them.
One technique here is to attack some of the more blatantly intolerant
manifestations of 'anti-racism', such as I have described in the
previous chapter. Such attacks are of course guaranteed to win public
applause, while at the same time being calculated to shift public
attention away from the central issue - which is whether Britain
should be a multi-racial country or a White one - and onto a side
issue, which is the method by which multi-racial Britain should be
promoted and enforced."

[B J Foster]

On 12/11/2011 3:13 AM, Topaz wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:39:31 +1100, B J Foster
> <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2011 1:03 PM, Topaz wrote:
>>>> ‘Why don’t we get out and build our own nation?
>>> You are a White liberal if you don't agree with the above.
>>
>> It doesn't make sense to build a nation of morons
>
> We need to preserve the White race. That means we need to have a
> nation for White people. White nationalists and Black nationalists are
> on the same page. Race mixers are the problem.

If you want to 'build a nation' of melanin-deficient people feel free to
pick out a site in a desert somewhere, so that normal people can just
ignore you.

You can take the whole spider family with you. And BTW, you won't need
the internet.

>
>
> Here is a quote from "The Eleventh Hour" by John Tyndall. (Torries
> are like the Republicans in the USA)

(yawn)

>
>
> http://www.1hr.org/ http://www.natvan.c0m
>
> http://nationa1-socia1ist-wor1dview.b1ogspot.com

[saracene]

On Nov 11, 10:57 pm, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>
> If you want to 'build a nation' of melanin-deficient people feel free to
> pick out a site in a desert somewhere, so that normal people can just
> ignore you.
>

"How would you feel if your daughter wanted to marry a big buck nigger
with the prospect of coffee-coloured grandchildren?" -

[B J Foster]

It would be great news, especially with the ozone hole, that they
wouldn't have to worry too much about UV rays and melanoma.

[bringyagrogalong]

To be fair to Foster, he's part aboriginal so is already coffee-
coloured.

[Gillard=Rudd in a frock]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:42 someone claiming to be bringyagrogalong
(pres...@manloveboysociety.com.au), babbled incoherently:

I notice your wife is not racist; she will take anyone on as long as they
can pay for her "services".

LOL!
--

"One thing is sure - there will be no Gillard era. This is not a
20-year stretch. Civilised people's hands are already over their faces
every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no
influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there."

Bob Ellis (ALP speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv

"Gillard is part of a Melbourne-based gang Ellis dubs the "Mouse Pack",
which includes Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson.

"They twitch their whiskers and come out in favour of the Afghan war
without studying the problem or noting that an army intelligence
officer [independent MP Andrew Wilkie] holds the balance of power,"
Ellis says."

More Bob Ellis (ALP Speech writer) on Dullard!
http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv

Labor Lies:

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" - Ju-Liar
Dullard

“Well certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that
somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their
advertising. We certainly reject that.” (Swan the Goose)

[Topaz]

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.

[Topaz]

Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:

"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
now mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that
seemed to always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with
peeling paint an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some
old holdouts in the neighborhood, they told me that the once rare
burglary, vandalism and assault had now become commonplace. The
diehard White remnants who remained had adapted to the changes and
found a way to endure each indignity and violation the best they
could. The change had been so gradual that they were no longer shocked
by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.

"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men
standing around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously
unknown White person trespassing in their neighborhood.

"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my
memories became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the
neighborhood. It seemed as though I had only been away a few scant
hours. Now those memories crashed against the images of the present
causing me to feel off balance. It was akin to visiting a healthy
friend and then after a few short weeks to see him wasting away with
cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection was more idealized than it
really was--as soon as I returned home, I ferreted out my old
photographs.

"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive
than I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often
accented with blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks
edged closely, and many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos
dotted the clean streets. Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and
Becky Thatcher-like bright faces of the children with whom I spent so
many happy hours of childhood.

"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets
yards and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry
teenagers, with scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and
crack in their pockets, menacing the streets where children now fear
to venture. A picture repeated, I believe, all over the United States
of America. For the current White residents of Gentilly Woods their
story is much like the story fo the frog that is put in a pot of warm
water while the temperature is slowly increased until the poor
creature is boiling and it is too late to save itself. Is the
traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water to realize
what is ahead?

"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."


The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 6:29 AM, Topaz wrote:
> White people invented just about everything
> important.

Nazis invented nothing of importance. Medical discoveries virtually
ceased in Germany after 1936 because most people in medical research
were Jews and they fled. Invention and innovation needs an open
objective mind. That's why the closed 'dolt' like brains of racists and
Nazis never create or invent anything.

Take the middle-east. Persia was once a thriving civilization inventing
heaps of things which are still useful today. Since the closed-minded
Islam and its close ally, Nazism little new or useful has emerged from Iran.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/GrandMufti-and-Bosnian-Muslim-Nazi-Troops.jpg

> Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
> the tests

Studying what 'leftists' will or will not admit to is about as
interesting as whether Nazis' penises are bent left or right.

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 6:30 AM, Topaz wrote:
> Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
>
> "Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
> a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
> now mostly Black and disheveled.

Are you sure he's not describing the inside of his own mind?

Many people have stated clearly that there is no scientific concept of
'race'.

How a wonderfully inventive and *logical* nation such as the Germans who
gave us Mozart, Beethoven, Gauss and Einstein fell for the demented
ravings of a syphilis-addled Austrian fuckwit will forever be one of the
unsolved mysteries of the 20th century.

Nowadays the US, which gave us Engineer-Artist Steve Jobs, also gave us
Duh-duh-davuhd Dick, a foaming, hate-ridden idiot, mouting bile and acid
with every breath.

Fuck off, Nazi idiot.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:41:48 +1100, B J Foster
<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:


>>
>> "Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
>> a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
>> now mostly Black and disheveled.
>
>Are you sure he's not describing the inside of his own mind?

Anyone can go to Black areas and see that he is correct. If you are
lucky enough to not have one near you, you can see the movie "The
Bonfire of the Vanities".

>
>Many people have stated clearly that there is no scientific concept of
>'race'.

Those people are the Jews and their brainwashed minions.

>How a wonderfully inventive and *logical* nation such as the Germans who
>gave us Mozart, Beethoven, Gauss and Einstein fell for the demented
>ravings of a syphilis-addled Austrian fuckwit

The Jews control your media and your mind. Figuratively speaking, you
have your head up a Jews aft end:


There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Jewish control of the media:
MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and
chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American
Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.
LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David
Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory
Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers,
appointed by Clinton.
JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner
NEIL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News
JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC
DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News
SUMNER REDSTONE, CEO of Viacom, "world's biggest media giant"
(Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the
world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.
MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the
World (Jewish mother)
MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS
DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS
JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS
DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS
SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment
LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment
BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.
SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of
Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.
BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.
PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp.,
owner of Fox TV
MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly
identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his
"mentor."
ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe
and other publications.
WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post.
Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel
media."
RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post
JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe
NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA
Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the
Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV
Producers, appointed by Clinton.
ARIE FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.
STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on
domestic terrorism.
DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times
network of "alternative weeklies."
DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund
KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle
East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker
BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal
Entertainment
KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch
RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which
represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer
and Bill O'Reilly.
TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.
MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL
WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL-
TimeWarner
JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment
JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2
SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment
GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment
STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks
DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks
LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment
JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment
MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"
HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America
AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures
JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations
ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications
BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment
IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications
WOLF BLITZER, host of CNN's Late Edition
LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live
TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter
PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host
MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes
BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20
MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review
BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week
DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of
CATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post
HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek
WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director
Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle
PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle,
RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)
MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San
Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets
MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations
DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has
Israeli flag on his home page.
BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.
ANDREW LACK, president of NBC
DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins
DAVID REMNICK, Editor, The New Yorker
NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York
HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker
SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications,
includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group,
includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement;
American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more
than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television
programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.
DONALD NEWHOUSE, chairman of the board of directors, Associated Press.
PETER R KANN, CEO, Wall Street Journal, Barron's
RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.
LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

[Topaz]

By Robert N. Proctor

The problem with the "science vs. fascism" thesis is that it fails to
take into account the eagerness with which many scientists and
physicians embraced the Reich, and the many scientific disciplines
which actually flourished under the Nazis. Anyone who has ever
examined
a V-2 engine will have few doubts about this, and there are numerous
other examples. During the Nazi era, German scientists and engineers
either developed or greatly improved television, jet-propelled
aircraft
(including the ejection seat), guided missiles, electronic computers,
the electron microscope, atomic fission, data-processing technologies,

The first magnetic tape recording was of a speech by Hitler,


The story of science under German fascism is not, as conventional
wisdom would have it, only a narrative of suppression and survival; a
truthful account will explain how and why Nazi ideology promoted
certain areas of inquiry, and how projects and policies were
championed or disappeared because of political considerations.

In this article, I want to explore some of the obstacles that have
hindered our efforts to understand Nazi science and medicine. I will
concentrate on two myths: the myth of flawed science and the myth of
abandoned ethics. The Nazis, I shall suggest, supported many kinds of
science, left politics (as we often think of it) out of most, and did
not abandon ethics. There was an ethics of Nazi medical practice-
sometimes explicit, sometimes not; often cruel, but sometimes not.
This
is important to understand if we are not to perceive the German
physicians who endorsed Nazism as absolutely alien and otherworldly


Nazi Ideology and Anti-Tobacco Research
If you ask most experts when the first good evidence arose that
tobacco was a major cause of lung cancer, they will point to a series
of epidemiological studies by English and American researchers in the
early 1950s. If you ask when a medical consensus on this question
first arose, they will most likely point to the 1964 Surgeon General's
report, which took a strong stand on this question, or a similar
report by Britain's Royal College of Physicians two years earlier.

I have become convinced, however, that there was an earlier and
overlooked consensus, a consensus within the German medical and
scientific community, that emerged during the Nazi period. The Nazis
had a powerful anti-tobacco movement, arguably the most powerful in
the world at that time. Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists
fearing the corruption of the German "germ plasm" (i.e., genetic
material), by industrial hygienists fearing a reduction of people's
capacity to work, by nurses and midwives fearing harm to the "maternal
organism." Tobacco was said to be a "corrupting force in a rotting
civilization that has become lazy." The Nazis' anti-tobacco rhetoric
drew from an earlier generation's eugenics rhetoric and also reflected
an ethic of bodily purity and zeal for work.3 Tobacco use was attacked
as an "epidemic," a "plague," as "dry drunkenness," and as "lung
masturbation"; tobacco and alcohol abuses were "diseases of
civilization" and "relics of a liberal lifestyle."

Anti-tobacco research flourished in the Third Reich

Third Reich scientists also performed extensive work in the area of
occupational carcinogenesis. Physicians documented the health hazards
of asbestos, and in 1943 Germany became the first nation to recognize
lung cancer and mesothelioma caused by asbestos inhalation as
compensable occupational illnesses. Nazi Germany also pioneered what
we now call experimental epidemiology: two striking papers-a 1939
article by Franz H. Mueller of Cologne, and a 1943 paper by Eberhard
Schairer and Erich Schueniger of Jena-presented the most convincing
demonstrations up to that time that cigarettes were a major cause of
lung cancer. ..

How should we interpret such studies? How can we explain the fact that
Nazi Germany was home to the world's foremost tobacco-cancer
epidemiology and the world's strongest cancer prevention policy? Do we
say that "pockets of innovation" existed in Nazi Germany, resistant to
ideological influence?8 What if we find, on closer inspection, that
Germany's anti-tobacco research flourished not in spite of the Nazis,
but in large part because of the Nazis? And would it then be
appropriate, from a moral point of view, to cite such research in
scientific studies today?9

I ask this last question partly because the two tobacco studies I have
just discussed have, in fact, been repeatedly cited by postwar
scientific researchers, though rarely with any mention of the social
context within which they were carried out. There is never any
mention, for example, of the fact that the founding director of
Schueniger and Schairer's Institute was Karl Astel, Rector of the
University of Jena, a vicious racial hygienist, and an SS officer. One
never hears that the grant application for the Institute was written
by Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, chief organizer of Germany's system of
forced labor and a man hanged after the war for crimes against
humanity (most leaders of Nazi Germany's anti-tobacco movement were
silenced in one way or another after 1945). No mention is ever made of
the fact that funding for Astel's Institute, and therefore for
Schairer and Sch=F6niger's study, came from a gift of 100,000
Reichsmarks from the Fuehrer-himself an ardent anti-smoking activist.
It is clear to anyone who follows the money trail and the research
interests that Schairer and Schueniger's study would not have been
undertaken had it not been for Hitler's anti-tobacco sentiments and
those of his like-minded underlings. Hitler once even attributed the
rise of German fascism to his quitting smoking: the young
artist-architect had smoked a couple of packs a day until 1919, when
he threw his cigarettes into the Danube and never reached for them
again.

Again, how should we interpret such Nazi-era papers? How should we
judge the fact that Nazi ideology in this case (and there are others)
appears not to have hindered research, but actually to have promoted
it?

I raise the questions I do about Nazism and science because it is poor
scholarship and perhaps even dangerous to caricature the Nazis as
irrational or anti-science. What we have to look at more carefully is
the relationship between science and ideology at this time. It is not
the case, for example, that the papers on tobacco epidemiology I have
mentioned were uninfluenced by Nazi ideology. The Reich's anti-tobacco
program was motivated by Nazi ideals of bodily purity and racial
hygiene: there was a kind of "homeopathic paranoia" pervading Nazi
ideology that led many of its adherents to believe that tiny,
corrosive
elements were insinuating themselves into "the German body," sapping
its strength, causing harm. Appreciating this helps us understand how
Nazi science/ideologues could declare that tobacco tar, lead, mercury,
asbestos-and Jews-all posed a threat to the Nordic race. It also
may help us better understand why so many doctors were supporters of
Hitler's regime.

Why were German doctors such avid fans of fascism?
Why did nearly half of all German physicians join the Nazi party?
I don't think it was the tirades of Julius Streicher in Der Stuermer
that attracted their interest, but rather the promises of Nazi leaders
to solve Germany's problems medically, surgically. The Nazi state was
supposed to be a hygienic state; Nazism was supposed to be "applied
biology" (Fritz Lenz coined this phrase in 1931). Hitler was
celebrated
as the "great doctor" of German society and as the "Robert Koch of
politics" (Koch was a nineteenth century pioneer in studying the
bacterial origin of diseases). The seductive power of National
Socialism for many physicians lay in its promise to cleanse German
society of its corrupting elements-not just communism and Jews, but
also metallic lead and addictive tobacco, along with homosexuality.

The relation of science and politics in Nazi Germany was therefore
more complex than most people like to think. Part of the
misunderstanding, I would suggest, lies in the widely accepted belief
that when science is politicized, "real" science inevitably suffers:
the freedom of scientists is abrogated, distorting biases are
introduced into research, minds are closed, avenues of inquiry are
blocked. In many areas of science, of course, that is indeed what
happened in Nazi Germany; one thinks of the fate of Einstein's
relativity theory, for example. But in other areas-e.g., many areas of
public health- that was not the case at all.

Biology was another field that thrived. Ute Deichmann in her book,
Biologists Under Hitler (Harvard University Press, 1996), shows that
the majority of biologists in the Thirties and early Forties joined
the Nazi party; but it was still quite possible for non-Nazi
biologists to obtain grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
Germany's leading scientific grant agency. Not only possible but easy:
Deichmann discovered that there was no correlation at all between a
researcher receiving a grant and whether that researcher belonged to
the Nazi party. I would argue that biology prospered under the Nazis
because it was so integral to their worldview. Apart from the reasons
I have already discussed, there is the fact that Nazism placed a much
higher value on nature than on nurture in the development of human
talents and disabilities.

I am not sure I would agree with Deichmann that scientists in the
Third Reich were more independent of the regime than we usually think.

Independent research flourished in many fields but it was, after all,
also in the Nazi state's interest to cultivate a strong scientific
community, at least in certain disciplines. What is clearly wrong
about
the autonomy thesis, applied to science and medicine as a whole, is
that many professionals did not retreat into the purely technical. It
took a lot of medical enthusiasm to forcibly sterilize 350,000
Germans,

There is nothing inherently evil about physicians working and
cooperating with their government. The moral failure of the German
medical profession was its willingness to collaborate with the Nazi
state, its willingness to serve Nazi values. There is nothing wrong
with physicians working to preserve the health of a larger community;
that, after all, is the essence of responsible public health. What
differentiated National Socialist public health from genuine public
health in a reasonably civilized society was the exclusive nature of
what the Nazis considered "the community." Nazi values excluded Jews
and others deemed racially or genetically unfit from the volkisch
community...

It is just as misguided to believe that scientists who cooperated with
the Nazis were bereft of ethics as to believe the Nazis were
intrinsically hostile to science. There was an ethic of Nazi medical
practice, and it should be examined and understood.

It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
in the Third Reich. Medical students took courses on medical ethics;
medical textbooks in Nazi Germany discussed medical ethics. There was
a great deal of attention given to the obligations of physicians to
society, the state, and sometimes even to the individual. Nazi medical
philosophers were critical of the ideal of value-free science, which
was often equated with useless ivory-tower liberal-or Jewish-

"science for its own sake." Science was supposed to be "for the
people," though not of course for all people: Science was supposed to
be at the service of the German Volk, the healthy and productive white
races of Europe. Nazi medical ethics was underpinned by sexist
paternalism, Nordic supremacy, cleanliness, punctuality, orderliness,
unquestioned obedience to authority, and public and environmental
health. It tended to emphasize preventive medicine, cost efficiency,
the natural lifestyle, and the superiority of the productive worker.
Clearly, Nazi medicine was imbued with ethical principles ..

One sees evidence of these principles in Nazi public health practice.
Nazi health officials cleaned up water supplies and removed lead and
mercury from consumer products. Doctors were urged to counsel patients
against tobacco use, to maintain the efficiency of workers, safeguard
public and genetic health, and ensure the best possible medical care
for every pregnant woman and newborns judged "genetically fit." There
were debates about medical malpractice-whether, for example, natural
healers were to be barred from treating cancer patients (they
eventually were) -- and the limits of medical confidentiality and
medical disclosure. A 1943 article in a leading German cancer journal
cited the "demands of medical ethics" to inform patients of the
severity of their diseases, and in at least one case a physician was
prosecuted for failing to inform a woman she had cancer (physicians
protested the ruling in print).

The Nazi doctors were not madmen; that is why we must work so hard to
understand the origins of Nazism if we are to have any success in
preventing its resurgence.

Robert N. Proctor is professor of the history of science at
Pennsylvania State University.

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 10:05 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:41:48 +1100, B J Foster
> <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> "Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
>>> a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
>>> now mostly Black and disheveled.
>>
>> Are you sure he's not describing the inside of his own mind?
>
> Anyone can go to Black areas and see that he is correct. If you are
> lucky enough to not have one near you, you can see the movie "The
> Bonfire of the Vanities".
>

I have been through many "Black areas" and have met many wonderful people.

>
>>
>> Many people have stated clearly that there is no scientific concept of
>> 'race'.
>
> Those people are the Jews and their brainwashed minions.

You're a moron.

>
>
>> How a wonderfully inventive and *logical* nation such as the Germans who
>> gave us Mozart, Beethoven, Gauss and Einstein fell for the demented
>> ravings of a syphilis-addled Austrian fuckwit
>
> The Jews control your media and your mind. Figuratively speaking, you
> have your head up a Jews aft end:

Nazis never invented anything useful or lasting. Low intelligence is
inherently self-limiting.

>
>
> There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
> Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
> Hollywood.

Another wonderful contribution from a wonderful group of people.

What have you contributed to the world, other than hate and bile?

>
> Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
> It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
> from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
> What?":

Yeah, so what?

>
> "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
> power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
> influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
> will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
>
> "the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
> Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
> attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
> powerful positions."

Thanks for confirming that Jewish talent has changed the world.

>
> "When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
> undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
> all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
> Tom Pollack."
>
> Jewish control of the media:

(Yawn)

> MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News& World Report and

> RALPH J.& BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.

> LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group
>
>
>

> http://www.ihr.0rg/ http://www.natvan.c0m
>
> http://nationa1-socia1ist-wor1dview.b1ogspot.com

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:
> Anyone who has ever
> examined
> a V-2 engine will have few doubts about this, and there are numerous
> other examples.

Ahhh, the V2

"Over 3,000 of these bad boys had been launched at the Allies during
WWII, killing around 7,250 military and civilians. It sounds like it's
pretty revolutionary, right? Well, here's the cost of them making these.
Around 20,000 inmates died from constructing the V-2s. Not only was the
costs fairly high in human life, but the cost in Reichmarks topped
100,000, each. There was only one problem, it had no mechanism for
guiding. It was launched, and just went more or less, straight. So, as
you can see, not affective to fast air targets.

After WWII, the Allies worked hard to try and salvage as many of the
warheads as they could. To make it even better, they even captured two
of the lead designers of the V-2. With information such as this, space
travel by means of shuttle rockets was made all the more possible".
http://www.facepunch.com/threads/824289

So vile the Nazis, expended their scarce resource developing a useless
veapon, it only became useful when the Allies guided the knowledge into
productive uses *after* the war.

You'll note that the reference lists many other crackpot Nazi inventions:
Take the long pipe gun...

"What this is, is an extremely long pipe, with branches pointing the
direction of the projectile. What happens is the shell is pumped
through, and secondary charges are detonated just behind it, and it does
this over and over, allowing the 150mm shell to reach speeds of 1,000
meters per SECOND, with a distance of 165km. Although, this was short of
the speed expected, it was still extremely fast".

Brilliant? I think not. It was a major construction task to build one &
impossible to move around. A sitting duck for Lancasters - not that
they'd bother to bomb it, because the allies applauded the Nazi
propensity to consume their own scarce resources on crackpot projects.

Without any Jews around to manage them properly, this is the sort of
thing that happened.

Here's another:
"Anzio Annie, the decommissioned Railway Gun of WWII. This naughty girl
was one of Germany's strong offensive 'advantages'. I bet you're
wondering about it, so I'll get to it. This baby weights a hefty 230
tons, equipped with a 70 foot barrel, that fires 550 pound shells up to
a distance of 31 miles".

Only one problem - it's stuck on the railway line.

Nazis invented nothing of importance.

Werner von Braun once said:
"Germany, in many ways, was like the United States. You could support
your country without liking the president. The difference was that as a
US citizen you are entirely free to express your opinions. In Nazi
Germany, you lost at least your freedom, and possibly your life if you
did so".
and
"Years of direct exposure to the Hitler regime, and its excesses, taught
me a few unforgettable lessons and made me solidly opposed to any form
of government which would deprive man of human dignity"

Stupid Nazi, have you ever wondered why the V2 was useless?

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:

> I want to explore some of the obstacles that have
> hindered our efforts to understand Nazi science and medicine.

Nazi science is an oxymoron. Do I really need to explain why?

Nazi medicine is even more obvious - perhaps you'll 'get' this one:
What's the point of a fanatic bunch of murderers trying to understand
how to save life?

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:

> Nazi Ideology and Anti-Tobacco Research

"Reproductive policies

The Nazi reproductive policies were a significant factor behind their
anti-tobacco campaign.[11] Women who smoked were considered to be
vulnerable to premature aging and loss of physical attractiveness; they
were viewed as unsuitable to be wives and mothers in a German family.

Werner Huttig of the Nazi Party's *Rassenpolitisches* Amt (Office of
Racial Politics) said that a smoking mother's breast milk contained
nicotine,[20] a claim that modern research has proven
correct.[21][22][23][24] Martin Staemmler, a prominent physician during
the Third Reich, opined that smoking by pregnant women resulted in a
higher rate of stillbirths and miscarriages. This opinion was also
supported by well-known female racial hygienist Agnes Bluhm, whose book
published in 1936 expressed the same view. The Nazi leadership was
concerned over this because they wanted German women to be as
reproductive as possible. An article published in a German gynecology
journal in 1943 stated that women smoking three or more cigarettes per
day were more likely to remain childless compared to nonsmoking women.[25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany#Reproductive_policies

You obviously don't 'get' it - miscarriages by wives of Waffen SS
fuckwits would be likely to *improve* the human race, so any claim that
this research was an *advance* is a joke. You're joking, right?

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:

> I raise the questions I do about Nazism and science because it is poor
> scholarship and perhaps even dangerous to caricature the Nazis as
> irrational or anti-science

Interesting proposition. How else could you describe Nazis? Perhaps the
author meant that it was 'dangerous to caricature' these insane lunatics
as irrational *out* *loud*.


"One of the first actions of the new Nazi government was the creation of
a 'Law against treacherous attacks on the state and party and for the
protection of the party uniform'. As Hermann Goering reminded the
Academy of German Law, telling a joke could be an act against the Führer
and the state. Under this law, telling and listening to anti-Nazi jokes
were acts of treason. Several people were even put on trial for naming
dogs and horses 'Adolf'. Between 1933 and 1945, five thousand death
sentences were handed down by the 'People's Court' for treason, a large
number of them for anti-Nazi humor".

http://www.holocaust-trc.org/holocaust_humor.htm

ROTFL - I'm going to name my Rottweiler 'Adolf' in honour of those 5,000
*heroes*.

"One of those executed was Josef Müller, a Catholic priest who had told
two of his parishioners the following story:

A fatally wounded German soldier asked his chaplain to grant one final
wish. 'Place a picture of Hitler on one side of me, and a picture of
Goering on the other side. That way I can die like Jesus, between two
thieves'".

Hitler must have had a tiny dick - couldn't take a joke!

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:

> Why were German doctors such avid fans of fascism?

Simple - *everyone* was a 'fan' of fascism because fascism being what it
is terrorises anyone who is not a 'fan'.

> Why did nearly half of all German physicians join the Nazi party?

ROTFL. Medical discoveries ground to a halt after 1936 for the simple
reason that most medical researchers were Jewish. It doesn't take a
genius to extrapolate that to doctors in general.

And in any case, anyone who supported the abhorrent Nazi human
experiments could not *by* *definition* call themselves a 'doctor'.
'Butcher' would be a more appropriate term.

[B J Foster]

On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:

> It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
> standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
> in the Third Reich.

ROTFL. You belong in an asylum, you moron - get professional help!

[saracene]

For quoting this?

http://www.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp

It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine

in the Third Reich. Medical students took courses on medical ethics;
medical textbooks in Nazi Germany discussed medical ethics. There was
a great deal of attention given to the obligations of physicians to
society, the state, and sometimes even to the individual. Nazi medical
philosophers were critical of the ideal of value-free science, which

was often equated with useless ivory-tower liberal -- or Jewish --

"science for its own sake." Science was supposed to be "for the
people," though not of course for all people: Science was supposed to
be at the service of the German Volk, the healthy and productive white
races of Europe. Nazi medical ethics was underpinned by sexist
paternalism, Nordic supremacy, cleanliness, punctuality, orderliness,

12 unquestioned obedience to authority, and public and environmental

health. It tended to emphasize preventive medicine, cost efficiency,
the natural lifestyle, and the superiority of the productive worker.

Clearly, Nazi medicine was imbued with ethical principles -- some
admirable, some despicable.

One sees evidence of these principles in Nazi public health practice.
Nazi health officials cleaned up water supplies and removed lead and
mercury from consumer products. Doctors were urged to counsel patients

against tobacco use,13 to maintain the efficiency of workers,

safeguard public and genetic health, and ensure the best possible
medical care for every pregnant woman and newborns judged "genetically

fit." There were debates about medical malpractice -- whether, for

example, natural healers were to be barred from treating cancer
patients (they eventually were) -- and the limits of medical
confidentiality and medical disclosure. A 1943 article in a leading
German cancer journal cited the "demands of medical ethics" to inform
patients of the severity of their diseases, and in at least one case a
physician was prosecuted for failing to inform a woman she had cancer

(physicians protested the ruling in print).14

Ethical norms were implicit even in the most horrific experimental
practices in the camps. How else does one explain the fact that
"healthy" German citizens were never experimented on? Those subjected
to experimental violence were invariably people judged less than fully
human in the Nazi scale of values. Jews and Gypsies were considered
"diseased races," tumors in the German body politic. Nazi medical
crimes simply don't make sense without this conception of healthy and
diseased races, lives worthy and unworthy of living.

The doctors infamous today for brutalizing prisoners at Buchenwald or
Dachau were not morally blind or devoid of the power of moral
reflection. Acknowledging this, however, does not excuse the behavior
of these physicians; on the contrary, it is crucial if we are to
condemn them for their ethical transgressions. Possessing a sense of
morality means one is not a lunatic. Nazi legal philosophy tended to
blur the distinction between insanity and criminality, but it is a
distinction we must keep clear. The Nazi doctors were not madmen; that

[B J Foster]

On 14/11/2011 8:04 AM, saracene wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:32 pm, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:
>>
>>> It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
>>> standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
>>> in the Third Reich.
>>
>> ROTFL. You belong in an asylum, you moron - get professional help!
>
> For quoting this?
>
> http://www.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp
>
> It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
> standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
> in the Third Reich.

The principle that certain groups were 'subhuman' and had to be
'exterminated' completely contradicts the principles of medicine, to
protect and preserve life.

It follows that it is pointless to study anything the Nazis might have
labelled 'ethics' because it cannot be ethics except in the most twisted
fucked up mind.

[saracene]

On Nov 13, 9:11 pm, B J Foster <bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/11/2011 8:04 AM, saracene wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 12:32 pm, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid>  wrote:
> >> On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:
>
> >>> It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
> >>> standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
> >>> in the Third Reich.
>
> >> ROTFL. You belong in an asylum, you moron - get professional help!
>
> > For quoting this?
>
> >http://www.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp
>
> > It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
> > standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
> > in the Third Reich.
>
> The principle that certain groups were 'subhuman' and had to be
> 'exterminated' completely contradicts the principles of medicine, to
> protect and preserve life.

Vivisection contradicts those principles as you have just defined
them. You need to qualify.

>
> It follows that it is pointless to study anything the Nazis might have
> labelled 'ethics' because it cannot be ethics except in the most twisted
> fucked up mind.
>
>

Why then not study it as ethics in a twisted sense?
>
>
>

[B J Foster]

On 14/11/2011 8:31 AM, saracene wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:11 pm, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2011 8:04 AM, saracene wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 13, 12:32 pm, B J Foster<bjfos...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:
>>
>>>>> It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
>>>>> standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
>>>>> in the Third Reich.
>>
>>>> ROTFL. You belong in an asylum, you moron - get professional help!
>>
>>> For quoting this?
>>
>>> http://www.adl.org/braun/dim_14_1_nazi_med.asp
>>
>>> It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
>>> standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine
>>> in the Third Reich.
>>
>> The principle that certain groups were 'subhuman' and had to be
>> 'exterminated' completely contradicts the principles of medicine, to
>> protect and preserve life.
>
> Vivisection contradicts those principles as you have just defined
> them. You need to qualify.

Sure.
"...to protect and preserve *human* life".

>>
>> It follows that it is pointless to study anything the Nazis might have
>> labelled 'ethics' because it cannot be ethics except in the most twisted
>> fucked up mind.
>>
>>
> Why then not study it as ethics in a twisted sense?

As part of an anthropology course? Sure.

As part of medicine? People have attempted to justify the use of data
from nazi experiments & I'm sure that this topic has been soundly
debated. Personally, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole because the
underlying principles were totally contradictory to the aims of medical
science. Medical discoveries virtually ceased anyway, after 1936 - as
the majority of (effective) researchers were Jewish.

>>
>>
>>

[saracene]

If you look at the article in question that seems to be untrue. I
think that artilce was bourght up in refutation of that claim of
yours. Whatever you think of Topaz, the article is schoalrly and very
far from pro-Nazi.

[B J Foster]

>> from nazi experiments& I'm sure that this topic has been soundly

>> debated. Personally, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole because the
>> underlying principles were totally contradictory to the aims of medical
>> science. Medical discoveries virtually ceased anyway, after 1936 - as
>> the majority of (effective) researchers were Jewish.
>>
>>
> If you look at the article in question that seems to be untrue. I
> think that artilce was bourght up in refutation of that claim of
> yours. Whatever you think of Topaz, the article is schoalrly and very
> far from pro-Nazi.

I did & choked on the first sentence.

Article:
"It is poor scholarship and perhaps even dangerous to caricature the

Nazis as irrational or anti-science"

My response:
"Personally, I wouldn't touch it [nazi research data] with a bargepole

because the underlying principles were totally contradictory to the aims
of medical
science".

Topaz is attempting a slippery-slope argument, by trying to establish a
foothold with *some* experiments that yielded useful data.

The article take the line that some doctors enthusthiastically embraced
nazism. I would say that anyone who embraced nazism couldn't call
themselves a doctor.

[saracene]

Nearly half.

"Why were German doctors such avid fans of fascism? Why did nearly
half of all German physicians join the Nazi party?

I don't think it was the tirades of Julius Streicher in Der Stürmer

that attracted their interest, but rather the promises of Nazi leaders
to solve Germany's problems medically, surgically. The Nazi state was
supposed to be a hygienic state; Nazism was supposed to be "applied
biology" (Fritz Lenz coined this phrase in 1931). Hitler was
celebrated as the "great doctor" of German society and as the "Robert
Koch of politics" (Koch was a nineteenth century pioneer in studying
the bacterial origin of diseases). The seductive power of National
Socialism for many physicians lay in its promise to cleanse German

society of its corrupting elements -- not just communism and Jews, but
also metallic lead and addictive tobacco, along with homosexuality and
the "burdensome" mentally ill."

> I would say that anyone who embraced nazism couldn't call
> themselves a doctor.

What would you have called them then if you had needed to call on
their services? Not all doctors are nice people, even here today.

[B J Foster]

>> I did& choked on the first sentence.

>>
>> Article:
>> "It is poor scholarship and perhaps even dangerous to caricature the
>> Nazis as irrational or anti-science"
>>
>> My response:
>> "Personally, I wouldn't touch it [nazi research data] with a bargepole
>> because the underlying principles were totally contradictory to the aims
>> of medical
>> science".
>>
>> Topaz is attempting a slippery-slope argument, by trying to establish a
>> foothold with *some* experiments that yielded useful data.
>>
>> The article take the line that some doctors enthusthiastically embraced
>> nazism.
>
> Nearly half.
>
> "Why were German doctors such avid fans of fascism? Why did nearly
> half of all German physicians join the Nazi party?

Fair enough. If 'joining the party' is a proxy for 'enthusiasm'.

>
> I don't think it was the tirades of Julius Streicher in Der Stürmer
> that attracted their interest, but rather the promises of Nazi leaders
> to solve Germany's problems medically, surgically. The Nazi state was
> supposed to be a hygienic state; Nazism was supposed to be "applied
> biology" (Fritz Lenz coined this phrase in 1931). Hitler was
> celebrated as the "great doctor" of German society and as the "Robert
> Koch of politics" (Koch was a nineteenth century pioneer in studying
> the bacterial origin of diseases). The seductive power of National
> Socialism for many physicians lay in its promise to cleanse German
> society of its corrupting elements -- not just communism and Jews, but
> also metallic lead and addictive tobacco, along with homosexuality and
> the "burdensome" mentally ill."

Don't you love the irony.

>
>> I would say that anyone who embraced nazism couldn't call
>> themselves a doctor.
>
> What would you have called them then if you had needed to call on
> their services? Not all doctors are nice people, even here today.
>

A service provider.

[Topaz]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:32:45 +1100, B J Foster
<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:


>I have been through many "Black areas" and have met many wonderful people.

Safest / Most Dangerous Cities and Percentage of Blacks

Safest Cities (75,000 or more) per
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/

1. Amherst, N.Y 3.9%
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=91

2. Newton, Mass. 2.0%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Newton-Massachusetts.html

3. Mission Viejo, Calif. 1.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Mission-Viejo-California.html

4. Cary, N.C. 6.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Cary-North-Carolina.html

5. Brick Township, N.J. (Less than 1% as computed by dividing 75,325
population into 751 blacks)
http://www.co.ocean.nj.us/planning/databook/09RACE2000.htm

6. Simi Valley, Calif. 1.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Simi-Valley-California.html

7. Sunnyvale, Calif. 2.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sunnyvale-California.html

8. Colonie, N.Y. 3.5%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Colonie-New-York.html

9. Sterling Heights, Mich. 1.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Sterling-Heights-Michigan.html

10. Clarkstown, N.Y 7.9%
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=409
____________________

Most Dangerous Cities (75,000 or more) per
http://advertisers.americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_amherst_ny_tops/

1. Detroit 81.6%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html

2. Atlanta 61.4%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Atlanta-Georgia.html

3. St. Louis 51.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/St.-Louis-Missouri.html

4. Baltimore 64.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Baltimore-Maryland.html

5. Gary, Ind. 84.0%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Gary-Indiana.html

6. Camden, N.J. 53.3%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Camden-New-Jersey.html

7. Tampa 26.1%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Tampa-Florida.html

8. West Palm Beach, Fla. 32.2%
http://www.city-data.com/city/West-Palm-Beach-Florida.html

9. Compton, Calif. 40.3% (White non-Hispanic 1.0%)
http://www.city-data.com/city/Compton-California.html

10. Memphis, Tenn. 61.4%
http://www.city-data.com/city/Memphis-Tennessee.html

[Topaz]

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 Fuehrer, because he exposes their lies and crimes.
They hate him, because he rescued the hard-working German people from
eploitation. 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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!

[Topaz]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:10:23 +1100, B J Foster
<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:


>
>Nazi science is an oxymoron. Do I really need to explain why?
>

Nazis And Medical Ethics: Context And Lessons
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041018090754.htm
Source: American Medical Association
Date: 2004-10-18

Nazis And Medical Ethics: Context And Lessons

(With much Jewish propaganda deleted)

WASHINGTON -- The practice of medicine in Nazi Germany still
profoundly affects modern-day medical ethics codes, according to Alan
Wells, Ph.D., an expert in medical ethics with the American Medical
Association (AMA) and Patricia Heberer, Ph.D., historian at the Center
for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum (USHMM)...

"During the 1930s, the German medical establishment was admired as a
world leader in innovative public health and medical research,"...

According to Dr. Wells, World War II era Germans were extremely
advanced in medicine, technology and public health research but these
successes have largely been overlooked by history because of the
medical extremes of the Holocaust. For example, Germany was the first
to have a high-powered electron microscope, the first to document the
link between asbestos and lung cancer, and an innovator in developing
high profile public health campaigns for a variety of health issues --
such as anti-smoking campaigns and promoting breast self-examination
to help detect tumors at an early stage. These advances and campaigns,
however, were eventually aimed exclusively at the "Aryans"...


Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker

[Topaz]

KARL L. SCHOTTE
Berlin-Lankwitz,
Dürkheimerstrasse 14,
GERMANY.
August 7th, 1933.
Dear Ken:
Don't think that I am going to be taken to an insane asylum nor
that the world is coming to an end. This is not so, and I must object
very sincerely if the fact of my sitting down again after only several
months write a letter to you gives you such impressions. The reason
for this outstanding event is much rather the hotheaded criticism
about Hitler and his Government which you gave us in your recent
letter to Ruth, and which indeed surprised me very much. However,
before giving you my point of view on the new turn that has taken
place in Germany I should like to ask you to in the first place do me
the favor of keeping your shirt on, otherwise it is you who is making
"an ass of himself". One should never speak the language of a truck
driver, no matter how much one likes it. Now, don't be mad, but calm
down. You did not hurt Ruth's or my feelings at all, but there are two
reasons why I feel I should answer you. The first reason is that your
remarks are very unfair to Hitler and his new Government, and the
other is that I intend to do my share in preventing the American
generation to which you belong to be equally as ignorant as the
generation of the whole world was which tumbled into the last war.

What makes you believe and in such a definite way state that we
are unable to see the things as they are, since, as you write, we are
hypnotized by Hitler. It is not true, that you and all those of your
friends who you claim take the same viewpoint as you are taking are
basing your opinion upon reports and comments of American newspapers
and perhaps upon interviews of American visitors who recently have
been in Germany, and while you are willing to disregard certain
exaggerations you readily accept the rest as the truth? Is it not
possible that thus you are receiving but one side of the story?

You know that the American Press endeavoring to please the so
called taste for sensational news of the American Public is working
according to the countrywide newspaper principal: All the news that's
fit to print, and be it even lies. I do not belong to those who claim
that it is the American people who have such taste, but instead it is
the American Press which in order to obtain the attention of the
reader considers any means good enough to beat competition. You will
never find such crookedness among decent business. Such business
spirit is identified all over the world with the jewish business
spirit. You must not misunderstand me. Such spirit can be found among
Christian Jews as well as among Jewish Christians, if you get what I
mean. Nevertheless it is all over the world condemned as the jewish
spirit. You will not doubt this, I suppose? Perhaps in this connection
you will find it interesting to recall that the inventor of the most
unchivalrous means to fight the enemy, namely the father of all
newspaper liars, Lord Northcliffe was a Jew. When comparing the basis
of your knowledge about present day Germany with the basis of our
knowledge, don't you think that ours at least is a broader basis?
Don't you think that the possibility of witnessing present
developments in Germany combined with the ability of reading and
understanding American newspapers can represent an ideal basis of
knowledge for such person who - and this is the important thing - is
free of all feelings of hatred against either one of the two
countries?

The Berlin Correspondents of the American newspapers are not such
persons. Many of them are jews and many have taken a hostile attitude
towards Germany long before Hitler ever appeared on the stage of
German Public Life. This includes also Mr. Mowrer of the Chicago
Herald Tribune who, as I saw from the New York Times received this
years Pulitzer Prize of Journalism for his "excellent" articles on the
German development. A year ago a German Democrat, mind you, not a
Nazi, expressed astonishment that I should like to call upon Mr.
Mowrer, since this "excellent" American reporter has long enjoyed the
reputation even among German Democrats of being a German hater. This
hostility towards Germany on the part of American Correspondents in
Berlin indeed could much more entitle me to claim that it is you who
is hypnotized namely by the American Press in general.

Dear Kenneth, not until today in August 23rd could I find time to
continue this letter. When rereading what I so far have said above I
doubt if it is of any use to speak to you the way I did. I know you
are not anti-German, and yet while having received your school
education at a time of outright hostility towards Germany your mind is
only to readily inclined to accept any piece of news about Germany as
true and the correct version as long as this piece of news is
presented in such form which is free from obvious sensational
exaggeration. Since, however no piece of news published in the
American papers is reporting favorably on the German National
Socialistic Revolution your mind is systematically kept from turning
pro-German. This is the work of jewish influence in the American
Press. In face of such mental attitude of yours you naturally hesitate
to accept as the correct version anything which is told you by someone
who on one hand is not even a 100% American Citizen and on the other
hand is, as you know pro-German. For this reason I doubt if I can
change anything of your attitude towards Hitlerite Germany and of the
attitude of those of our friends who, as you claim take the same
viewpoint as you are taking. When, however, after reconsideration I
continue this letter it is, because even if I should not convince you
I wish to do my share in trying to destroy this hostile spirit of the
American People towards Germany and especially to contribute to making
the young Americans a more broadminded generation.

In the following I am going to copy part of my last letter to Mr.
Houston. The article I sent him months ago interested him very much.
Unfortunately he told me it was not written in good enough English. I
naturally am rather disappointed that my English still is too poor.
But even if my English had been correct there would have been no
possibility to place my article, Mr. Houston wrote, not saying of
course that any favorable viewpoint is prevented from publication in
the American Press. Here is what I answered him.
" --- Whereas the American papers beyond doubt are carrying a
tremendous amount of material about Germany from their regular
correspondents, and no number of interviews from all kinds of people
who recently have been in Germany, all this material, and be it even
just a report, is skillfully presented in such form which seemingly
intentially aims at being equally offensive for Hitler and his new
Government through ridiculing his deeds as giving nourishment to
anti-German sentiment. Most of the recent American visitors in Germany
seem to be of the type of jews whose hatred towards Hitlerite Germany
is a fanatical one. They of course are not in a position to give a
true picture to their countrymen of what they have seen or heard. Mr.
Michael Williams, editor of The Commonweal, president of the Calvert
Association, and a member of the Committee appointed by the American
Committee on Religious Reports and Minorities to go to Germany and
investigate conditions published a report (New York Times of June
14th) of his own private visit, since the committees visit was
postponed. He claimed to have spent "nearly" two weeks in Berlin
interviewing members of the Hitler Government, leading business and
professional men, both German and American, as well as Protestant,
Catholic, and Jewish leaders. Not one single name is mentioned in his
report. "One of the most prominent German political leaders"(?) told
him that the outlawing of the Jews was a mistake comparable only to
the invasion of Belgium at the outbreak of the World War. It is plain
that such a remark, if it really was made, could be made only by a
person equally hostile towards Germany as Mr. Williams himself. Maybe
this interview took place at a concentration camp. When returning to
America these people cry: Democracy is at an end in Germany. But they
are anxiously concealing the truth that before Hitler came jewish
democratic corruption has brought Germany on the verge of Communism.
Such "Democracy" indeed is at an end now in Germany. All this
excitement about democracy being at an end and about "persecutions"
and outlawing of the German Jews who amount to but 1% of the total
German population seems very strange indeed when compared with the
calmness with which the world took the cruelty and terrorism of the
Russian Revolution which, as everyone knows, was prepared and created
by Jews and by jewish money.

Too bad that Mr. James G. McDonald, chairman of the Foreign Policy
Association, can find nothing better for him to do than to call upon
all American Christians to step into line with Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, as
I see from the New York Times of June 15th and July 11th. He too has
recently been in Germany, and on July 11th the New York Times
published his address in Chautauqua, N.Y. dealing with his visit in
Germany and with the situation there as it existed more than three
months ago, namely on April 1st, at the time of the (24 hours)
anti-Jews boycott. The report in the paper was headed by the remark:
Statements that Jews are not being cruelly treated in Germany were
termed "an insult to the intelligence" by James G. McDonald. Thus the
American Public is made to believe that Mr. McDonald is furnishing an
up-to-date denial for all new reports about improving conditions in
Germany. Such is the way matters about Germany are twisted in the
American Press. Senator Wagner too has stepped into line with Rabbi
Wise as I have noticed. I regret it, but I am convinced that many
people have done so because of absolute misinformation about present
day Germany. People trying to argue in favor of Hitlerite Germany, as
Mr. Bernard Ridder tried to do, are quickly being ridiculed as one may
see from the New York Times comment of June 14th, and I doubt if the
well known Radio announcer Douglas Brinkley who during his visit in
Germany in Berlin Talkies expressed his admiration for Hitler and this
new Germany ever again will be allowed to broadcast in America.

The Berlin correspondents of the American Press fall in line with
the above mentioned general attitude towards Germany. I suppose they
have to in order to keep their jobs. This might be easy for them,
since many of them are Jews and some are known to be hostile towards
Germany long before Hitler ever appeared in front of German Public
Life. Under such circumstances it seems plain to me that any viewpoint
favorable for Germany would today not be considered by the big
American papers, since jewish influence in the American Press is much
too strong.

Dear Mr. Houston, when in the above I have given you my opinion
about American Public Opinion it was done, because I feel confident
that you will not misunderstand me. When I am arguing for Hitler and
in favor of present day Germany it is not only because of the many
great deeds of Hitler (uniting the German people, crushing Communism,
successfully fighting unemployment) but also because I positively know
that the only way to serve the purpose of German American friendship
is to bring about mutual respect between the people of the two
countries. To accomplish this one must fight for mutual respect
between Opinion in America and in Germany. German Public Opinion and
the German People are showing this respect for America. Everyone here
is speaking of the courage and leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt in
terms of admiration. It is up to American Public Opinion to give honor
where honor is due.

So much about my letter to Mr. Houston. Now I shall give you part of
my article which I sent to Mr. Houston and which he showed to Dr.
Wilbur Thomas, the Director of the Carl Schurz Foundation, and to Dr.
Carl Ackerman, the Dean of the School of Journalism at Columbia
University. Although, as I said above it is not written in good
English, Mr. Houston as well as the two other gentlemen found the
article very interesting. Here is what I said back in May 1933.

After a short introduction I wrote: "The world war was won not with
the sword but with the pen. This is a German opinion which is shared
also by a good many Americans. Apart from now one might think on this
subject nobody today would deny the fact that the pen, if used as a
weapon, can prove to be a mighty deadly sword. If now we wish to
liquidate the world war, if we seriously endeavor to promote world
peace, to promote good relationship between the nations of the world
it seems to be absolutely essential that we should stop using war
weapons and stop tolerating warlike propaganda. In other words, we
should do all we can to prevent endangering good relationship between
countries. Claiming to be well acquainted with German political
troubles of past years as well as with the mentality of the German
People I feel that the American newspaper reader is not at all put in
a position to get a clear and true conception about Germany. Above all
it is to my mind equally silly as it is preventing the education of
the American people if the American newspaper reader is left to
believe that the Germans are a barbaric nation. The absurdity of such
statements does not make them less dangerous to good relationship
between the American and the German people. If in the following I am
dealing with the fundamental achievement and the fundamental aim of
the German national socialistic revolution I am doing it for the
benefit of a better understanding between the American and the German
people. This better understanding is the more necessary the more we
wish to prevent that a few years of animosity between the two
countries should be permitted to destroy a century old friendship
between the American and the German people.

Contrary to political custom Hitler said in his address to the
masses on the Tempelhof field on May 1st that he is not going to tell
the workman how important for the Nation the labourman and his work
are, and turn around and speak to the intelligent class of people as
if to the cream of the Nation, and turn around again and speak to the
peasant telling him how valuable he is. On the contrary he is going to
demonstrate to one class of people the importance and the value of the
other. This attitude is not only wise, but it also reveals the mystery
of this sudden sense of unity that has come over the German people.
When I am going to apply the same methods while writing to America
about Germany, it is because making one people understand and respect
another people might equally well prove to be the best method to bring
about the much longed for mutual understanding between the nations of
the world.

The German national socialistic revolution beginning on January
30th, still in full swing today, and going to be carried out
furthermore for an indefinite time to come is a revolution of mind. It
is a revolution of the national mind as well as of the social mind of
the people. Only a short time ago American Correspondents and
traveling newspapermen used to report from Germany that the growing of
the Hitlerite Party was the outcome of general dissatisfaction and
hardship. If this had been the case, if Hitler had gained support
merely on the ground of promising the same bread and work with all of
his
(page missing)
possibility of such development before taking place in Germany, Hitler
succeeded in changing the minds of his followers from the Communist
rank and file. They no more are Communists, but National socialists.
They have killed in themselves that hatred they felt towards the rich
and towards the white-collar-man, in general to an equal extent as
this white-collar-man and this rich man have been made to no more look
down upon the workman or anybody doing manual labor. It is true, not
all of Germany has turned to national socialism. However while for
this very reason Hitler's revolution still is in full swing, and will
be carried out furthermore until such time when this final aim is
reached, a new election, if held today, might well show an increase of
the nationalsocialsit vote from 17.5 million on March 5th to close to
30 million out of a total electorate of about 44 million votes.

Hitler's revolution of mind, as I have tried to explain it, in no
way is representing a danger to world peace, and again it seems
strange that Hitler's assurances to keep peace frequently are ignored
in reports printed in the foreign Press. As impressive as this German
revolution of mind might be to the foreign observer who knows Germany
and the German people it is only reasonable that it cannot be equally
impressive to those Americans who not yet have had a chance to visit
and get acquainted with Germany. After all, this new German spirit is
nothing new to us in America. Republicans and Democrats, both call it
the true democratic spirit. The workman in America always has been as
much respected as the white-collar-man, and our boys have long been
working their way through College through manual labor. However, for
this very reason it seems to me that no people is better equipped
mentally to understand this new Germany and its leader than the
American people.

If when writing about the Germany nationalsocialistic revolution I
would fail to touch the jewish problem in Germany the reader indeed
would miss an important explanation to a new German attitude which has
created worldwide interest and partly even new animosity. Endeavoring
to from and impartial point of view seek an explanation for this
change in Germany one must realize two outstanding facts. One is that
the percentage of Jews in Germany indeed is exceptionally small and
the other is that this small percentage in postwar years has enjoyed
an undue large share of public influence. While moreover a great many
Jewish names are connected with all kinds of affairs of administrative
corruption of postwar Germany thus making it all the easier for Hitler
and his followers to gain countrywide support when calling for a
radical reduction of the Jewish influence, it is wrong to regard this
attitude as an affront to the Jewish religion. This it is not. Instead
this attitude is directed against a postwar political system which has
discredited the Marxist parties in Germany and the Jews, since many of
them have played such prominent part in cooperation with those parties
and the many cases of disloyalty and dishonesty they have been
connected with. When I said above that the small percentage of Jews in
Germany in postwar years so far have enjoyed an undue large share of
public influence, this was possible because of their close cooperation
with the Marxist parties. In other words it was not superior ability
which entitled them to such share but political pull. Until recently
conditions in Germany indeed were of such kind that many a Christian
student would cease studying, since he had to realize that his road of
future was blocked by political interests, whereas the jewish student
would keep on studying knowing perfectly well that his father,
although perhaps a businessman and not a politician, nevertheless had
sufficient political pull to pave his way. In such development the new
Germany sees a controlling increase of the Jewish element in the field
of education which the Jewish population percentage in Germany does
not justify.

Hand in hand with this development the possibility of marrying has
thus been made so much easier for the young Jewish generation, which
fact in turning no doubt is contributing to increasing the population
percentage of the German Jews to the disadvantage of the other
confessions. Such developments are of no little importance for
Germany, and while today under the Hitler Government a radical change
is being made this radicalism is not directed against each single
Jewish citizen. On the contrary the form in which the new laws are
being applied show a liberal spirit and reveal the truth that the
attitude of Hitler Germany towards this Jewish problem ought to
correctly be regarded as directed against a political system of
corruption with which the German Jews unfortunately so impressively
have identified themselves."

So much from my article. I hope I have put it clear enough to
realize that the Jewish problem in Germany is a question of life or
death of the German race. If such development as was tolerated before
Hitler came should be permitted to continue it should be obvious for
everyone that in the course of time the face of the German population
would change considerably. Germany, as you know, has a population of
66 million people. Among these 66 million are but about 600,000 Jewish
citizen. Under those circumstances as described above this small
percentage in the course of time could increase rapidly because of
conditions of life being more protected against all hardship,
marriages being made easier because of professional and business
protection which safeguard in turn enables the Jewish woman to give
birth to children. Moreover it should be easy to realize that favoring
the Jewish element to such an extent as was done before Hitler came
necessarily leads to giving away the top positions in Government,
industry, and education to Jews, while on the other hand the German
race of Protestant and Catholic confession is being pushed back into
positions of no influence which in turn in the course of time will
make them unable to lead their own country because of being deprived
the necessary educational training in matters of administration, big
business, and education. At the same time their population percentage
of now 99% is rapidly decreasing because of the German woman through
hardship of life and uncertainty because of the German woman through
hardship of life and uncertainty of the husbands future being unable
to give birth to children.

Dear Kenneth, my English might be very poor, but I hope you get what
I am trying to explain. I hope you see that Hitler's anti-Semitism is
not directed against the Jewish religion nor against each single Jew.
No Jewish citizen here is being molested. News to the contrary are
lies and nonsense. Such news naturally are being spread by Jews, since
the Jews realize very well, as the newspaper "Jewish Chronicle"
published in South Africa recently admitted, that the Jewish fight for
world control through the Hitler Revolution in Germany has received a
setback of 100 years of strenuous work. The Jewish citizen in Germany
shall continue to enjoy a peaceful living as he did before Hitler came
with the only exception that he shall enjoy no influence beyond the
frame of his own population percentage. In the interest of the German
race I do not hesitate to call such attitude, as queer as it might
seem to you, a "democratic persecution" and I regard it as very sound.
The Jewish citizen who does not like such democratic persecution might
leave the country and immigrate somewhere else. And when I say
immigrate somewhere else you perhaps will realize how harmful it was
and still is that the USA for such a long time had kept its doors open
especially at times of business prosperity. In America the Jew saw a
vast country with tremendous resources and no end of business
possibilities. But he had no intention to go out and work. You will
find no Jew being busy as farmer. No, such common work is good enough
for the children and grandchildren of the Christian pilgrims of
German, French and English birth who alone have built up the country
which is called the United States. The Jew was doing the business of
his own race, namely lending out money and waiting in his armchair for
the return. Thus he gradually got hold of this and that business
undertaking, thus he gradually got hold of the entire country. There
is today no country in the whole world with a more powerful influence
of the Jewish element except perhaps England, than the USA. The fact
that such a powerful Christian businessman as Henry Fold is flatly
denying everything he said in his book against the Jews speaks for
itself. The German element among the American population used to have
a great influence in the country. And when I recall the name of
Steuben do you doubt that such influence was for the benefit of the
country? Where are the Steubens of today? Don't tell me there are
none. That is not correct. But it is true that in the course of time
the German American element has been degraded to the influence of a
butcher and grooceryshopowner. Where there are exceptions you will
possibly find that the exception is a Jew. The USA was not governed by
Washington but by Wall Street. Franklin D. Roosevelt is the first
President to challenge this. It remains to be seen if the power he has
been given is sufficient for the success. You may be absolutely sure
that Washington and Berlin are in perfect accord although this
sometimes does not seem so.

Washington is not fighting against Hitler, but instead is watching
Hitler's experiment with the Jewish problem with very keen interest
knowing perfectly well that this experiment might lead the whole
world. Watch Ireland, watch the increase of fascism in England, watch
the change in France that will come, remember the American Postmaster
Generals order forbidding anti-German boycott stamps on the back of
envelopes.
October 2nd 1933.

Dear Kenneth: Not until today could I find time to continue this
letter, and I must admit that since your last letter arrived which
again was full of insulting remarks about Adolf Hitler I feel little
inclined to do so. I must state that you have changed greatly. You
were much more grown-up when in May 1932 you left us. I don't know
whose influence it is and I don't care. I only know that while you
were with us you grew accustomed to argue in a serious way seeking
effect only through the sincerity of your argument and not through a
strong language. The letter method is used only by children and
hysteric women and men. If I wanted to argue with you on the basis of
your last letter I indeed could easily come back and picture a great
many Americans who have been making an ass of themselves and still are
making an ass of themselves, and I could speak much more convincing,
since I know America, whereas you in your highhatted ignorance are
adopting nothing but what jewish reporters publish and you fall for
any line of talk as long as the lies are presented in a somewhat
plausible form. You need not boast about not having Nationalsozialism
in America. It is quite doubtful if such is an advantage, and the fact
that the American Democratic system given to the country by men who
justfully can be called great Americans has grown into a system of
rotten corruption might bring about American Nationalsozialism quicker
than you think.

Any system of government stands and falls with its leaders. Are the
leaders rotten the system will turn to be rotten too. Such was the
case in Germany, and such might be the case in America too. Moreover
America some day might be happy to turn to Nationalsozialism instead
of turning to Communism. However as long as there are many of young
Americans thinking the way you do, namely from one moving picture to
another I see great trouble ahead for the country, trouble which will
be far more serious than the Russian revolution was. When in face of
your calling us being hypnotized I answer you that I am a great
admirer of Adolf Hitler I am doing so in order to warn you to remain
as narrow-minded as you now are. You never will hear the truth about
present day Germany, for America at present is a jewish country.
Jewish influence is dominating, and sooner or later the American
Aryans will realize what they shall have to fight for.
Nationalsozialism would never come to America from Germany but from
the Aryan population in America and such will bring about a rebirth of
Washington's United States.

Why cry about the poor little children who are called upon to join
Hitler's junior leagues, when they themselves are crazy to do so.
Little Jobi has joined and he is tickled to death about it. Why throw
out your chest and condemn militarism when there is no country on the
face of the earth more militaristic than the United States? Or do you
deny that American boys in their small years even are receiving
military training? Is such a sign that America intends to go to war?
You say: No. Well, I answer you, Germany won't either. A picture of
Hindenburg and Hitler published in an American paper was called: A
business conference between H. and H., whereas truly it was a picture
of the celebration of the battle of Tannenberg. Such shows how much
even in matters of minor importance American newspapers are making an
ass of themselves. Even if you don't like it, Adolf Hitler is one of
the greatest and at the same time one of the most modest men Germany
has ever had. Future will show that I am right. Goodbye now, and don't
think that I am sore, I am just a little disappointed in you.

Hearty greetings,

[Topaz]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:31:00 +1100, B J Foster
<bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 13/11/2011 10:06 PM, Topaz wrote:
>> Why were German doctors such avid fans of fascism?
>
>Simple - *everyone* was a 'fan' of fascism because fascism being what it
>is terrorises anyone who is not a 'fan'.
>

ADOLF HITLER
SCHWERIN, GUSTLOFF'S FUNERAL
SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936

. . . BEHIND every murder stood the same power which is responsible
for this murder; behind these harmless insignificant fellow-countrymen
who were instigated and incited to crime stands the hate-filled power
of our Jewish foe, a foe to whom we had done no harm, but who none the
less sought to subjugate our German people and make of it its slave -
the foe who is responsible for all the misfortune that fell upon us in
1918, for all the misfortune which plagued Germany in the years that
followed. Those members of the Party and honorable comrades of ours
all fell, and the same fate was planned for others: many hundreds
survived as cripples or severely wounded, blinded or lamed; more than
40,000 others were injured. And among them were so many loyal folk
whom we all knew and who were near and dear to us, of whom we were
sure that they could never do any harm to anyone, that they had never
done any harm to anyone, whose only crime was that they devoted
themselves to the cause of Germany.

In the ranks of those whose lives were thus sacrificed there stood
also Horst Wessel, the singer who gave to the Movement its song, never
dreaming that he would join those spirits who march and have marched
with us.

And now on foreign soil National Socialism has gained its first
conscious martyr - a man who did nothing save to enter the lists for
Germany which is not only his sacred right but his duty in this world:
a man who did nothing save remember his homeland and pledge himself to
her in loyalty. He, too, was murdered, just like so many others. Even
at the time when on January 30 three years ago we had come into power,
precisely the same things happened in Germany, at Frankfort on the
Oder, at Köpenick, and again at Brunswick. The procedure was always
the same: a few men come and call someone out of his house and then
stab or shoot him down.

That is no chance: it is the same guiding hand which organized these
crimes and purposes to do so again. Now for the first time one who is
responsible for these acts has appeared in his own person. For the
first time he employs no harmless German fellow-countryman. It is a
title to fame for Switzerland, as it is for our own Germans in
Switzerland, that no one let himself be hired to do this deed so that
for the first time the spiritual begetter of the act must himself
perform the act. So our comrade has fallen a victim to that power
which wages a fanatical warfare not only against our German people but
against every free, autonomous, and independent people. We understand
the challenge to battle and we take up the gage! My dear comrade! You
have not fallen in vain!

[Topaz]

There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.

Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."

"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."

"When Matsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."

Jewish control of the media:

MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN, owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and

RALPH J. & BRIAN ROBERTS, Owners, Comcast-ATT Cable TV.

LAWRENCE KIRSHBAUM, CEO, AOL-Time Warner Book Group

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime
and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of
any country'
(Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'The same Europe that let Jews be exterminated on its soil is letting
Jews be exterminated now, looking away and letting itself off the
hook...'
(Giulio Meotti)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[B J Foster]

On 15/11/2011 1:13 PM, Topaz wrote:
> They always lied, they lie today, they lie, they lie.

And *this* from Goebbels?

[B J Foster]

On 15/11/2011 1:21 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:10:23 +1100, B J Foster
> <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nazi science is an oxymoron. Do I really need to explain why?
>>

Not very bright, are you?

Did you understand the question?

[B J Foster]

On 15/11/2011 1:23 PM, Topaz wrote:
> I am going to be taken to an insane asylum

Izzat why you post to alt.psychology all the time - a subliminal plea
for help?

[B J Foster]

On 15/11/2011 1:24 PM, Topaz wrote:
> ADOLF HITLER
> SCHWERIN, GUSTLOFF'S FUNERAL
> SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 12, 1936
>
> . . . BEHIND every murder

Close - but still an exaggeration

[B J Foster]

On 15/11/2011 1:24 PM, Topaz wrote:

> "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
> power and prominence in popular culture.

That's excellent news, thank you. Moron.

[Topaz]

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"

[Topaz]

Secrets by the Thousands: The Great US Theft of German Technology
C. Lester Walker -- Harper's -- October 1946
http://www.wanttoknow.info/war/4610_secret_nazi_war_technology

.. .. Tens of thousands of tons of material are involved. It is
estimated that over a million separate items must be handled, and that
they are, very likely, practically all the scientific, industrial and
military secrets of Nazi Germany. One Washington official has called
it "the greatest single source of this type of material in the world,
the first orderly exploitation of an entire country's brain-power." ..
.. This one war secret alone, many American steel men believe, will
revolutionize dozens of our metal fabrication industries. In textiles
the war secrets collection has produced so many revelations that
American textile men are a little dizzy .. .. Army Air Force experts
declare publicly that in rocket power and guided missiles the Nazis
were ahead of us by at least ten years.

[Topaz]

THERE IS NO GREATER POWER in the world today than that wielded by the
manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no
conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even
remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's
mass media of news and entertainment.

Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home
in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It
is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every
citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us
what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know-or
think we know-about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of
acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news
magazine, our radio, or our television.

It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories
from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of
history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the
opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise
both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the
entertainment that they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are
emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words,
tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the
choice of illustrations-all of these things subliminally and yet
profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.
On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any
remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about
it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they
guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in"
crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know
exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people
and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context
of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters
react in the Politically Correct way.

Molding American Minds

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and
socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge"
Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual,
or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the
other hand, a White racist-that is, any racially conscious White
person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening
racial situation in America-is portrayed, at best, as a despicable
bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a
dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to
all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has
become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an
unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations
and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the
televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he
does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the
real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV
environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform
responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some
ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing,
and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions
of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news,
whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of
thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or
news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of
us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but also
they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible
spectrum of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some
editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every
utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares
suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the
Arab-Jewish conflict, or that 9-11 was a result of that support. Nor
does anyone dare suggest that it served Jewish interests, rather than
American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel's
principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible
opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United
States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news
of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan-with the
partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen
without exception, however, take the position that "multiculturalism"
and racial mixing are here to stay and that they are good things.
Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail
to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who
complains about "managed news" falls into the trap of thinking that
because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can
escape the thought controllers' influence by believing the editor or
commentator of his choice. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose"
situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion
is acceptable to the media masters-and no impermissible fact or
viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all, if they can prevent it.
The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of
the controlled media-television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books,
motion pictures-speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other.
Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no
alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of
people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of
the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the
world-a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the
races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish "Holocaust" tale, the
wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring
across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear
arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the
desirability of a "pluralistic," cosmopolitan society rather than a
homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the
media masters to suit their own ends-and the pressure to conform to
that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in
accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media? As we shall see,
to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn't simply a matter of the
media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom
happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media
masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich
Gentiles to rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the
preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we are
obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.

Electronic News & Entertainment Media
Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry
has resulted, not in the touted increase of competition, but rather in
an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have
produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The
largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by
consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s.
Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting
station or via cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature
film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to
recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine-it is
very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was
produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies:
Time Warner. The largest media conglomerate today is Time Warner
(briefly called AOL-Time Warner; the AOL was dropped from the name
when accounting practices at the AOL division were questioned by
government investigators), which reached its current form when America
Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The combined
company had revenue of $39.5 billion in 2003. The merger brought
together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-Time Warner, and
Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Warner, founded by the Jewish Warner
brothers in the early part of the last century, rapidly became part of
the Jewish power base in Hollywood, a fact so well-known that it is
openly admitted by Jewish authors, as is the fact that each new media
acquisition becomes dominated by Jews in turn: Speaking of the initial
merger of Time, Inc. with Warner, Jewish writer Michael Wolff said in
New York magazine in 2001 "since Time Inc.'s merger with Warner ten
years ago, one of the interesting transitions is that it has become a
Jewish company." ("From AOL to W," New York magazine, January 29,
2001)

The third most powerful man at AOL-Time Warner, at least on paper, was
Vice Chairman Ted Turner, a White Gentile. Turner had traded his
Turner Broadcasting System, which included CNN, to Time Warner in 1996
for a large block of Time Warner shares. By April 2001 Levin had
effectively fired Ted Turner, eliminating him from any real power.
However, Turner remained a very large and outspoken shareholder and
member of the board of directors.

Levin overplayed his hand, and in a May 2002 showdown, he was fired by
the company's board. For Ted Turner, who had lost $7 billion of his $9
billion due to Levin's mismanagement, it was small solace. Turner
remains an outsider with no control over the inner workings of the
company. Also under pressure, Steve Case resigned effective in May
2003. The board replaced both Levin and Case with a Black, Richard
Parsons. Behind Parsons the Jewish influence and power remains
dominant.

AOL is the largest Internet service provider in the world, with 34
million U.S. subscribers. It is now being used as an online platform
for the Jewish content from Time Warner. Jodi Kahn and Meg Siesfeld,
both Jews, lead the Time Inc. Interactive team under executive editor
Ned Desmond, a White Gentile. All three report to Time Inc.
editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. Their job is to transfer
Time Warner's content to target specific segments of America Online's
audience, especially women, children, and teens.

Time Warner was already the second largest of the international media
leviathans when it merged with AOL. Time Warner's subsidiary HBO (26
million subscribers) is the nation's largest pay-TV cable network.
HBO's "competitor" Cinemax is another of Time Warner's many cable
ventures.

Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Jewish billionaire Edgar
Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America's largest record company, with
50 labels. Warner Music was an early promoter of "gangsta rap."
Through its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope's
acquisition by another Jewish-owned media firm), it helped to
popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to
commit acts of violence against Whites. Bronfman purchased Warner
Music in 2004, keeping it solidly in Jewish hands.

In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the
production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock
Entertainment, and New Line Cinema). Time Warner's publishing division
is managed by its editor-in-chief, Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. He
controls 50 magazines including Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and
People. Book publishing ventures include Time-Life Books,
Book-of-the-Month Club, Little Brown, and many others. Time Warner
also owns Shoutcast and Winamp, the very tools that most independent
Internet radio broadcasters rely on, and, as a dominant player in the
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), was essentially
"negotiating" with itself when Internet radio music royalty rules were
set that strongly favored large content providers and forced many
small broadcasters into silence. (The Register, "AOL Time Warner takes
grip of net radio," 8th April 2003)

Ted Turner's Lesson: "Be very careful with whom you merge."
When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, made a bid to buy CBS in
1985, there was panic in the media boardrooms across the country.
Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then built a successful
cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers.
Although Turner had never taken a stand contrary to Jewish interests,
he was regarded by William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as
uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future
turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had
worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a
personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner's bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish
theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to
launch a "friendly" takeover of CBS. From 1986 to 1995 Tisch was the
chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence
there. Subsequent efforts by Ted Turner to acquire CBS were obstructed
by Gerald Levin's Time Warner, which owned nearly 20 percent of CBS
stock and had veto power over major deals. But when his fellow Jew
Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin
had no objections.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never
commanded the "connections" necessary for being a media master. He
finally decided if you can't lick 'em, join 'em, and he sold out to
Levin's Time Warner. Ted Turner summed it up:


"I've had an incredible life for the most part. I made a lot of smart
moves, and I made a lot of money. Then something happened, and I
merged with Time Warner, which looked like the right thing to do at
the time. And it was good for shareholders.

"But then I lost control. I thought I would have enough moral
authority to have all the influence in the new company. If you go into
business, be very careful with whom you merge.

"I thought I was buying Time Warner, but they were buying me. We had
kind of a difference in viewpoint. Then they merged with AOL, and that
was a complete disaster, at least so far. I have lost 85 percent of my
wealth."

Disney. The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 2003
revenues of $27.1 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its leading
personality and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew.

The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a
"control freak," includes several television production companies
(Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista
Television) and cable networks with more than 100 million subscribers
altogether. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures
Group includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood
Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by
the Jewish Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such
ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.
When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to
its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome family
entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the
company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal
of so-called "adult" material.

In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns
the ABC television network, which in turn owns ten TV stations
outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. In addition, in the United States
ABC has 225 affiliated TV stations, over 2,900 affiliated radio
stations and produces over 7,200 radio programs. ABC owns 54 radio
stations and operates 57 radio stations, many in major cities such as
New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. Radio Disney, part of ABC Radio
Networks, provides programming targeting children.

Sports network ESPN, an ABC cable subsidiary, is headed by President
and CEO George W. Bodenheimer, who is a Jew. The corporation also
controls the Disney Channel, Toon Disney, A&E, Lifetime Television,
SOAPnet and the History Channel, with between 86 and 88 million
subscribers each. The ABC Family television network has 84 million
subscribers and, in addition to broadcasting entertainment (some of it
quite raunchy for a "family" channel), is also the network outlet for
Christian Zionist TV evangelist Pat Robertson.

Although primarily a telecommunications company, ABC/Disney earns over
$1 billion in publishing, owning Walt Disney Company Book Publishing,
Hyperion Books, and Miramax Books. It also owns six daily newspapers
and publishes over 20 magazines. Disney Publishing Worldwide publishes
books and magazines in 55 languages in 74 countries, reaching more
than 100 million readers each month

On the Internet, Disney runs Buena Vista Internet Group, ABC Internet
Group, ABC.com, ABCNEWS.com, Oscar.com, Mr. Showbiz, Disney Online,
Disney's Daily Blast, Disney.com, Family.com, ESPN Internet Group,
ESPN.sportzone.com, Soccernet.com, NFL.com, NBA.com, Infoseek (partial
ownership), and Disney Interactive.

Viacom. Number three on the list, with 2003 revenues of just over
$26.5 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray
Rothstein), a Jew. Melvin A. Karmazin, another Jew, was number two at
Viacom until June 2004, holding the positions of president and chief
operating officer. Karmazin remains a large Viacom shareholder.
Replacing Karmazin as co-presidents and co-COOs are a Jew, Leslie
Moonves, and Tom Freston, a possible Jew. (We have been unable to
confirm Freston's Jewish ancestry; he has done work for Jewish
organizations and was involved in the garment trade, a heavily Jewish
industry, importing clothing from the Third World to the U.S. in the
1970s.)

Viacom produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest
networks, owns 39 television stations outright with another 200
affiliates in its wholly-owned CBS Television Network, owns 185 radio
stations in its Infinity radio group, and has over 1,500 affiliated
stations through its CBS Radio Network. It produces feature films
through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing (born
Sherry Lee Heimann), who is planning to retire at the end of 2005.
Viacom was formed in 1971 as a way to dodge an anti-monopoly FCC
ruling that required CBS to spin off a part of its cable TV operations
and syndicated programming business. This move by the government
unfortunately did nothing to reduce the mostly Jewish collaborative
monopoly that remains the major problem with the industry. In 1999,
after CBS had again augmented itself by buying King World Productions
(a leading TV program syndicator), Viacom acquired its progenitor
company, CBS, in a double mockery of the spirit of the 1971 ruling.
Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders' votes
at CBS and Viacom. CBS Television has long been headed by the
previously mentioned Leslie Moonves; the other Viacom co-president,
Tom Freston, headed wholly-owned MTV.

Viacom also owns the Country Music Television and The Nashville
Network cable channels and is the largest outdoor advertising
(billboards, etc.) entity in the U.S. Viacom's publishing division
includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, Fireside, and
Archway Paperbacks. It distributes videos through its over 8,000
Blockbuster stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting,
theme parks, and video games.

Viacom's chief claim to fame, however, is as the world's largest
provider of cable programming through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon,
Black Entertainment Television, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and
Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile
television audience. MTV dominates the television market for viewers
between the ages of 12 and 24.

Sumner Redstone owns 76 per cent of the shares of Viacom. He offers
Jackass as a teen role model and pumps MTV's racially mixed rock and
rap videos into 342 million homes in 140 countries and is a dominant
cultural influence on White teenagers around the world. MTV also makes
race-mixing movies like Save the Last Dance.

Nickelodeon, with over 87 million subscribers, has by far the largest
share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and is
expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display
the blatant degeneracy that is MTV's trademark, but Redstone is
gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the
same poison purveyed by MTV. Nickelodeon continues a 12-year streak as
the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.

NBC Universal. Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He
headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent
merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of
the World Jewish Congress.

Seagram owned Universal Studios and later purchased Interscope
Records, the foremost promoter of "gangsta rap," from Warner.
Universal and Interscope now belong to Vivendi Universal, which merged
with NBC in May 2004, with the parent company now called NBC
Universal.

Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998
when he also acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant,
by paying $10.6 billion to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips.
In June 2000, the Bronfman family traded Seagram to Vivendi for stock
in Vivendi, and Edgar, Jr. became vice chairman of Vivendi. Vivendi
was originally a French utilities company, and was then led by Gentile
Jean-Marie Messier. A board of directors faction led by Bronfman
forced Messier to resign in July 2002.

Vivendi also acquired bisexual Jew Barry Diller's USA Networks in
2002. (Diller is the owner of InterActive Corporation, which owns
Expedia, Ticketmaster, The Home Shopping Network, Lending Tree,
Hotels.com, CitySearch, Evite, Match.com, and other Internet
businesses.) Vivendi combined the USA Network, Universal Studios,
Universal Television, and theme parks into Vivendi Universal
Entertainment (VUE).

After the Vivendi-NBC merger, Bronfman used his considerable personal
profits to strike out on his own, and recently purchased Warner Music
from Jewish-dominated Time Warner. The current chairman of NBC
Universal is a Gentile often associated with Jewish causes, long-time
NBC employee Bob Wright. Ron Meyer, a Jew, is president and chief
operating officer of Universal Studios. Stacey Snider, also Jewish, is
the chairman of Universal Pictures. The president of NBC Universal
Television Group is Jeff Zucker, another Jew.

With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews
(Disney and Viacom), with Jewish executives running the media
operations of NBC Universal, and with Jews filling a large proportion
of the executive jobs at Time Warner, it is unlikely that such an
overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate,
concerted effort on the Jews' part.

Other media companies: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation owns Fox
Television Network, Fox News, the FX Channel, 20th Century Fox Films,
Fox 2000, and publisher Harper Collins. News Corp. is the fifth
largest megamedia corporation in the nation, with 2003 revenues of
approximately $19.2 billion. It is the only other media company which
comes close to the top four.

Its Fox News Channel has been a key outlet pushing the Jewish
neoconservative agenda that lies behind the Iraq War and which
animates both the administration of George W. Bush and the "new
conservatism" that embraces aggressive Zionism and multiracialism.

Murdoch is nominally a Gentile, but there is some uncertainty about
his ancestry and he has vigorously supported Zionism and other Jewish
causes throughout his life. (Historian David Irving has published
information from a claimed high-level media source who says that
Murdoch's mother, Elisabeth Joy Greene, was Jewish, but we have not
been able to confirm this.) Murdoch's number two executive is Peter
Chernin, who is president and chief operating officer-and a Jew.
Under Chernin, Jews hold key positions in the company: Gail Berman
runs Fox Entertainment Group; Mitchell Stern heads satellite
television division DirecTV; Jane Friedman is chairman and CEO of
Harper Collins; and Thomas Rothman is chairman of Fox Filmed
Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV
Guide, and both are published under Chernin's supervision. The primary
printed neoconservative journal, The Weekly Standard, is also
published by News Corporation and edited by William Kristol, a leading
Jewish neocon spokesman and "intellectual."

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not
owned by the large media corporations are also controlled by Jews.
For example, Spyglass, an "independent" film producer which has made
such films as The Sixth Sense, The Insider, and Shanghai Noon, is
controlled by its Jewish founders Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum, who
are co-chairmen. Jonathan Glickman serves as president and Paul
Neinstein is executive vice president. Both men are Jews. Spyglass
makes movies exclusively for DreamWorks SKG.

The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a
strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media
hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures
chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all
three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films,
television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and
connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks
may soon be in the same league as the big four.

One major studio, Columbia Pictures, is owned by the Japanese
multinational firm Sony. Nevertheless, the studio's chairman is Jewess
Amy Pascal, and its output fully reflects the Jewish social agenda.
Sony's music division recently merged with European music giant BMG to
form Sony BMG Music Entertainment, now one of the world's largest
music distributors. It is headed by CEO Andrew Lack, formerly
president and CEO of NBC-and a Jew. Sony's overall American operations
are headed by a Jew named Howard Stringer, formerly of CBS, who hired
Lack.

It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and
distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie
industry in the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney
died in 1966, the last barrier to the total Jewish domination of
Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able to grab ownership of the
company that Walt built. Since then they have had everything their way
in the movie industry.

Films produced by seven of the firms mentioned above-Disney, Warner
Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), Universal (NBC Universal), 20th Century
Fox (News Corp.), DreamWorks, and Columbia (Sony)-accounted for 94% of
total box-office receipts for the year 2003.

The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS,
and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are
no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however,
each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard
Goldenson; NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and
CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch. Over several
decades these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and
the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the
networks were absorbed by other Jewish-dominated media corporations.
The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.
NBC provides a good example of this. The president of NBC News is Neal
Shapiro. Jeff Zucker is NBC Universal Television Group president.
Reporting directly to Zucker is his close friend Jonathan Wald,
formerly an NBC program producer, now a senior consultant for CNBC.
David M. Zaslav is president of NBC Cable (and also a director of
digital video firm TiVo Inc.). The president of MSNBC is Rick Kaplan.
All of these men are Jews.

A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the
other networks. Sumner Redstone, Tom Freston, and Les Moonves control
Viacom's CBS. Moonves demonstrated his power in 2002 by replacing the
entire staff of the new CBS Early Show. He is also a great-nephew of
Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister. Al
Ortiz (also a Jew) is executive producer and director of special
events coverage for CBS News. Senior executive producer Michael Bass
and Victor Neufeld (formerly producer of ABC's 20/20) produce the CBS
Early Show; both are Jews.

At ABC, David Westin, who is a Jew according to Jeffrey Blankfort of
the Middle East Labor Bulletin, is the president of ABC News. The
senior vice president for news at ABC is Paul Slavin, also a Jew.
Bernard Gershon, a Jew, is senior vice president/general manager of
the ABC News Digital Media Group, in charge of ABCNEWS.com, ABC News
Productions, and ABC News Video Source.

The Print Media

After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential
information medium in America. About 58 million of them are sold (and
presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,456
different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of
different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against
minority control and distortion. Alas, such is not the case. There is
less independence, less competition, and much less representation of
majority interests than a casual observer would think.

In 1945, four out of five American newspapers were independently owned
and published by local people with close ties to their communities.
Those days, however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were
bought out or driven out of business by the mid-1970s. Today most
"local" newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large
companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or even
thousands of miles away. Today less than 20 percent of the country's
1,456 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to
multi-newspaper chains. Only 103 of the total number have circulations
of more than 100,000. Only a handful are large enough to maintain
independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest
must depend on these few for all of their national and international
news.

The Associated Press (AP), which sells content to newspapers, is
currently under the control of its Jewish vice president and managing
editor, Michael Silverman, who directs the day-to-day news reporting
and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman had directed the
AP's national news as assistant managing editor, beginning in 1989.
Jewess Ann Levin is AP's national news editor. Silverman and Levin are
under Jonathan Wolman, also a Jew, who was promoted to senior vice
president of AP in November 2002.

In only two per cent of the cities in America is there more than one
daily newspaper, and competition is frequently nominal even among
them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same
ownership or under joint operating agreements.

Much of the competition has disappeared through the monopolistic
tactics of the Jewish Newhouse family's holding company, Advance
Publications. Advance publications buys one of two competing
newspapers, and then starts an advertising war by slashing advertising
rates, which drives both papers to the edge of bankruptcy. Advance
Publications then steps in and buys the competing newspaper. Often
both papers continue: one as a morning paper and the other as an
evening paper. Eventually, though, one of the papers is closed-giving
the Newhouse brothers the only daily newspaper in that city. For
example, in 2001 the Newhouses closed the Syracuse Herald-Journal
leaving their other Syracuse newspaper, the Post-Journal, with a
monopoly.

The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack of
real competition among America's daily newspapers: it also illustrates
the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion
control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouses own 31
daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as
the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New
Orleans Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of
television stations and cable operations; the Sunday supplement
Parade, with a circulation of more than 35 million copies per week;
some two dozen major magazines, including The New Yorker, Vogue,
Wired, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly-owned Conde
Nast group. The staffing of the magazines is, as you might expect,
quite Kosher. Parade can serve as an example: Its publisher is Randy
Siegel, its editor and senior vice president is Lee Kravitz, its
creative director is Ira Yoffe, its science editor is David H. Levy,
and its health editor is Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld.

This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an
immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he
bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two
sons, Samuel and Donald. With a number of further acquisitions, the
net worth of Advance Publications has grown to more than $9 billion
today. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family
was facilitated by newspapers' revenue structure. Newspapers, to a
large degree, are not supported by their subscribers but by their
advertisers. It is advertising revenue-not the small change collected
from a newspaper's readers-that largely pays the editor's salary and
yields the owner's profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city
choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the
favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the
beginning of the last century, when Jewish mercantile power in America
became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the
number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady
decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers-to some extent a
result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants.

Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and
management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue
that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely
constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the
newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the
tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local
monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized
the rise of Jewish control over America's newspapers. The resulting
ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of
Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples
of the nation's three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the
New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
These three, dominating America's financial and political capitals,
are the newspapers that set the trends and the guidelines for nearly
all the others. They are the ones that decide what is news and what
isn't at the national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands.

The New York Times, with a 2003 circulation of 1,119,000, is the
unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural
guide of the nation. It tells America's "smart set" which books to buy
and which films to see; which opinions are in style at the moment;
which politicians, educators, spiritual leaders, artists, and
businessmen are the real comers. And for a few decades in the 19th
century it was a genuinely American newspaper.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J.
Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896
from Jones's estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His
great-great-grandson, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper's current
publisher and the chairman of the New York Times Co. Russell T. Lewis,
also a Jew, is president and chief executive officer of The New York
Times Company. Michael Golden, another Jew, is vice chairman. Martin
Nisenholtz, a Jew, runs their massive Internet operations.

The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33
other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993
for $1.1 billion; eight TV and two radio broadcasting stations; and
more than 40 news-oriented Web operations. It also publishes the
International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed
English-language daily in the world. The New York Times News Service
transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York
Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines.
Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by
establishing its "leaks" throughout government agencies in Washington,
has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.
The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin.
It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in
1905 by John R. McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In
June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the
newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy
auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former partner of the
infamous Bernard Baruch, a Jew who was industry czar in America during
the First World War. The Washington Post was run by Katherine Meyer
Graham, Eugene Meyer's daughter, until her death in 2001. She was the
principal stockholder and board chairman of the Washington Post
Company; and she appointed her son, Donald Graham, publisher of the
paper in 1979. Donald became Washington Post Company CEO in 1991 and
its board chairman in 1993, and the chain of Jewish control at the
Post remains unbroken. The newspaper has a daily circulation of
732,000, and its Sunday edition sells over one million copies.

The Washington Post Company has a number of other media holdings in
newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military
publications); in television (WDIV in Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG
in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville);
and in magazines, most notably the nation's number-two weekly
newsmagazine, Newsweek.

The Washington Post Company's various television ventures reach a
total of about 12 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One,
has 750,000 subscribers.

The Wall Street Journal sells 1,820,000 copies each weekday and is
owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also
publishes 33 other newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid
Barron's. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter R. Kann, who is a
Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall
Street Journal.

Most of New York's other major newspapers are in no better hands than
the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the
New York Daily News (circulation 729,000) was bought from the estate
of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by
Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. Another Jew, Les
Goodstein, is the president and chief operating officer of the New
York Daily News. And, as mentioned above, the neocon-slanted New York
Post (circulation 652,000) is owned by News Corporation under the
supervision of Jew Peter Chernin.

News Magazines
The story is much the same for other media as it is for television,
radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider, for example,
newsmagazines. There are only three of any importance published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.
Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a
subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the news media conglomerate
formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications.
The editor-in-chief of Time Warner Communication is Norman Pearlstine,
a Jew.

Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
Company, under the Jew Donald Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2
million.

U=2ES. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.0 million,
is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman,
who also has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for
himself. Zuckerman also owns New York's tabloid newspaper, the Daily
News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the nation.

Our Responsibility
Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to
spend a few hours in a large library looking into current editions of
yearbooks on the radio and television industries and into directories
of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their
officers, such as those published by Standard and Poors and by Dun and
Bradstreet; and into standard biographical reference works can verify
their accuracy. They are undeniable. When confronted with these facts,
Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner
isn't a Jew!" they will announce triumphantly, as if that settled the
issue. If pressed further they will accuse the confronter of
"anti-Semitism" for even raising the subject. It is fear of this
accusation that keeps many persons who know the facts silent.
But we must not remain silent on this most important of issues. The
Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important
fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There
is nothing-plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war-more
dangerous to the future of our people.

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United
States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to
decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there
would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have
been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would have been no Iraq
War, and thousands of lives would have been saved. There would have
been little, if any, American support for the Zionist state of Israel,
and the hatreds, feuds, and terror of the Middle East would never have
been brought to our shores.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we
are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our
political system and virtual control of our government; we also are
giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose
attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish
films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in
persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and
acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White
women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian
women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and
character-except that the character of the White race is suspect
because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by
Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people,
and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be
intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority
with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the
Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient
Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race
suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so
filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively
seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish
media control.

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control,
it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to
break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil
power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting
its lethal poison into our people's minds and souls. If our race fails
to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully'
(George W. Bush)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'It is common knowledge that Fakestine is nothing but southern Syria'
(Ahmad Shuqairy, founder of PLO)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human
face - forever'
(George Orwell (1903 - 1950))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Topaz]

by James Buchanan

Let's say the Germans merely removed the Jews from positions of
political power and banned them from the legal profession. Germany
went from devastating economic poverty in 1932 to full employment just
a couple years later. If an incredible economic improvement can be
achieved, merely by removing the Jews from power (and replacing them
with patriotic nationalists), then every Gentile nation in the world
should give this a try.

Obviously the Jews don't want anyone else getting the idea of removing
them to create prosperity. The Jews control the mass media in most
Western countries. Most people don't know about the Balfour
Declaration. During World War One, Zionist Jews offered to use their
control of the press to bring America into World War One if Britain
would promise them Palestine. This offer was dubbed the Balfour
Declaration. If the Jews had enough media control and influence to
push America into World War One in 1917, what else have they done with
their power?

It was a huge embarrassment for the Jews to see Germany so prosperous
in the mid-1930s after removing them from power. They considered this
a dangerous precedent. To deal with this "problem" the Jewish World
Congress declared war on Germany in 1933. This declaration of war at
least encouraged a world-wide boycott against Germany and at worst
encouraged other nations of the world to become hostile toward
Germany. (The Jews curiously sanctioned the Germans before the Germans
passed any laws restricting the Jews.) More importantly the Jews
pushed vicious anti-German slander in all the Jewish-owned newspapers
in the West in the years leading up to World War Two. The Communist
mass murder of 30 million people in Russia and the Ukraine received
almost no publicity in the Jewish media. Most people in the West only
heard a serious mention of these Communist mass murders beginning in
the 1980s. Instead, the Jewish media focused all their hatred and
agitation against Germany and its allies.

After six years of relentless agitation, the Jews pushed England and
France into war with Germany. Only two years later, FDR and his cabal
of Jews provoked a war with Japan (and Germany).

Naturally, the Jews did not want future historians to say: "World War
Two was provoked by the Jewish media in retaliation for Germany
removing the Jews from power." The Jews needed a new reason for World
War Two. A reason that painted their enemies as unquestionably evil.
So they invented the Holocaust.

The Holocaust stood mostly unchallenged for decades after the war
because people feared being branded "Nazi-sympathizers" for
questioning its details. The truth always comes out in the long run.
Professor Arthur Butz published his famous work "The Hoax of the 20th
Century" in 1977 detailing a very solid argument against this war
propaganda. Dr. Butz pointed out that the world population of Jews
remained at about 16 million before and after the war. He also noted
that half a million Jews remained in Paris after four years of German
occupation. Both these facts strongly suggest the Holocaust is a
fraud, but the political power of the Jews has suppressed and punished
any public questioning of the Holocaust to this day. David Irving
joined the ranks of Revisionist historians several years ago and went
from a famous successful author to a pariah thanks to persecution by
the Jews.

The Institute for Historical Review has done great work exposing the
Holocaust as a great historical fraud. Anyone interested in looking
for historical truth should visit their website. It's a shock for many
people to see how much propaganda we've been force fed.

http://www.ihr.org

[Topaz]

Here are parts of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg in 1934. The ending of this speech is in the film Triumph of
the Will.

"It is difficult to define the concept of propaganda thoroughly and
precisely. This is especially true since in past decades it was
subject to unfavorable definitions, particularly as the enemy defined
it with regards to us Germans. First, then, we must defend it. Those
abroad sometimes claim that in the past we Germans were particularly
good in this area, but that unfortunately is not consistent with the
facts. We learned this all too clearly during the World War. While the
enemy states produced unprecedented atrocity propaganda aimed at
Germany throughout the whole world, we did nothing and were completely
defenseless against it. Only when enemy foreign propaganda had nearly
won over the greater part of the neutral states did the German
government begin to sense the enormous power of propaganda. It was too
late. Just as we were militarily and economically unprepared for the
war, so too with propaganda. We lost the war in this area more than in
any other.

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war
was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even
today large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical
characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing
the facts and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that
were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about
German soldiers chopping off children's hands and crucifying women to
realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of
calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense.

The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation,
particularly as the result of political practice in Germany.
Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern
state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the
subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not
only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand
that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes
everything that helps the people to realize this.

Political propaganda in principle is active and revolutionary. It is
aimed at the broad masses. It speaks the language of the people
because it wants to be understood by the people. Its task is the
highest creative art of putting sometimes complicated events and facts
in a way simple enough to be understood by the man on the street. Its
foundation is that there is nothing the people cannot understand,
rather things must be put in a way that they can understand. It is a
question of making it clear to him by using the proper approach,
evidence and language.

Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to
an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without
internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a
superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it
wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the
appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such
is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals
it seeks."

"Each propaganda had a direction. The quality of this direction
determines whether propaganda has a positive or negative effect. Good
propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no
reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people
cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the
truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A
propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be
successful in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along
that serves a good cause. But propaganda is still necessary if a good
cause is to succeed. A good idea does not win simply because it is
good. It must be presented properly if it is to win. But a good idea
is itself the best propaganda. Such propaganda is successful without
being obnoxious. It depends on its nature, not its methods. It works
without being noticed. Its goals are inherent in its nature. Since it
is almost invisible, it is effective and powerful. A good cause will
lose to a bad one if it depends only on its rightness, while the other
side uses the methods of influencing the masses. We are for example
convinced that we fought the war for a good cause, but that was not
enough. The world should also have known that our cause was good.
However, we lacked the effective means of mass propaganda to make that
clear to the world. Marxism certainly did not fight for great ideals.
Despite that, in November 1918 it overcame Kaiser, Reich and the army
because it was superior in the art of mass propaganda.

National Socialism learned from these two examples. It drew the
correct practical conclusions from that knowledge. The ideal of a
socialist national community did not remain mere theory with us, but
became living reality in the thoughts and feelings of 67 million
Germans. Our propaganda of word and deed created the conditions for
that. Mastering them kept National Socialism from the danger of
remaining the dream and longing of a few thousand. Through propaganda,
it became hard, steely everyday reality."

"Marxism could not be eliminated by a government decision. Its
elimination was the end result of a process that began in the people.
But that was only possible because our propaganda had shown people
that Marxism was a danger to both the state and society. The positive
national discipline of the German press would never have been possible
without the compete elimination of the influence of the liberal-Jewish
press. That happened only because of the years-long work of our
propaganda. Today particularism in Germany is something of the past.
The fact that it was eliminated by a strong central idea of the Reich
is no accident, rather depended on psychological foundations that were
established by our propaganda.

Or consider economic policy. Does anyone believe that the idea of
class struggle could have been eliminated only by a law? Is it not
rather the fact that the seeds we sowed in a hundred thousand meetings
resulted in a new socialist structure of labor? Today employers and
workers stand together in the Labor Front. The Law on National Labor
is the foundation of our economic thinking, realizing itself more and
more. Are not these social achievements the result of the long and
tireless labor of thousands of speakers?"

"We could eliminate the Jewish danger in our culture because the
people had recognized it as the result of our propaganda. Major
cultural achievements such as the unique "Kraft durch Freude" are
possible only with the powerful support of the people. The
prerequisite was and is propaganda, which here too creates and
maintains the connection to the people.

The Winter Relief last year raised about 350 million Marks. This was
not the result of taxation, rather many gifts of every amount.
Everyone gave freely and gladly, many of whom in the past had done
nothing in the face of similar need. Why? Because a broad propaganda
using every modern means presented the whole nation with the need of
this program of social assistance.

45 million Reich Marks of goods and services were provided. 85 million
Reich Marks worth of fuel were distributed. 130 million Reich Marks
worth of food were given out. Ten million Reich Marks worth of meals
were provided, and 70 million Reich Marks worth of clothing.

Some of these achievements were the result of donations in kind,
others the result of cash donations. Street collections, donations of
a part of paychecks, contributions from companies, and gifts
subtracted from bank accounts resulted in cash totaling 184 million
Reich Marks. 24 million marks alone were the result of "One Dish
Sundays." The Reich itself added 15 million marks to the
contributions of the people. The railway system provided reduced or
free shipping with a value of 14 million Marks.

Of our population of 65,595,000, 16,511,00 were assisted by the Winter
Relief. There were 150,000 volunteers. There were only 4,474 paid
workers, of whom 4,144 were in the 34 Gaue and 330 in the Reich
headquarters.

Propaganda and education prepared the way for the largest social
assistance program in history. They were the foundation. Their success
was that, over a long winter, no one in Germany went hungry or was
cold.

Over 40 million people approved of the Fuehrer's decision to leave the
League of Nations on 12 November 1933. That gave him the ability to
speak to the world in the name of the nation, defending honor, peace
and equality as the national ideals of the German people. The issues
of disarmament were put on firm and clear foundations. Once again,
propaganda was the foundation for the nation's unity on 12 November,
and therefore of the freedom of action that the Fuehrer had.

Each situation brings new challenges. And each task requires the
support of the people, which can only be gained by untiring propaganda
that brings the broad masses knowledge and clarity. No area of public
life can do without it. It is the never resting force behind public
opinion. It must maintain an unbroken relationship between leadership
and people. Every means of technology must be put in its service; the
goal is to form the mass will and to give it meaning, purpose and
goals that will enable us to learn from past failures and mistakes and
ensure that the lead National Socialist strength has given us over
other nations will never again be lost.

May the bright flame of our enthusiasm never fade. It alone gives
light and warmth to the creative art of modern political propaganda.
Its roots are in the people. The movement gives it direction and
drive. The state can only provide it with the new, wide-ranging
technical means. Only a living relationship between people, movement
and state can guarantee that the creative art of propaganda, which we
have made ourselves the world's master, will never sink into
bureaucracy and official narrow-mindedness.

Creative people made it and put it in the service of our movement. We
must have creative people who can use the means of the state in its
service.

It is also a function of the modern state. Its reach is the firm
ground on which it must stand. It rises from the depths of the people,
and must always return to the people to find its roots and strength.
It may be good to have power based on weapons. It is better and longer
lasting, however, to win and hold the heart of a nation."

[Topaz]

By Robert N. Proctor

The problem with the "science vs. fascism" thesis is that it fails to
take into account the eagerness with which many scientists and
physicians embraced the Reich, and the many scientific disciplines
which actually flourished under the Nazis. Anyone who has ever
examined
a V-2 engine will have few doubts about this, and there are numerous
other examples. During the Nazi era, German scientists and engineers
either developed or greatly improved television, jet-propelled
aircraft
(including the ejection seat), guided missiles, electronic computers,
the electron microscope, atomic fission, data-processing technologies,

The first magnetic tape recording was of a speech by Hitler,


The story of science under German fascism is not, as conventional
wisdom would have it, only a narrative of suppression and survival; a
truthful account will explain how and why Nazi ideology promoted
certain areas of inquiry, and how projects and policies were
championed or disappeared because of political considerations.

In this article, I want to explore some of the obstacles that have
hindered our efforts to understand Nazi science and medicine. I will
concentrate on two myths: the myth of flawed science and the myth of
abandoned ethics. The Nazis, I shall suggest, supported many kinds of
science, left politics (as we often think of it) out of most, and did
not abandon ethics. There was an ethics of Nazi medical practice-
sometimes explicit, sometimes not; often cruel, but sometimes not.
This
is important to understand if we are not to perceive the German
physicians who endorsed Nazism as absolutely alien and otherworldly


Nazi Ideology and Anti-Tobacco Research
If you ask most experts when the first good evidence arose that
tobacco was a major cause of lung cancer, they will point to a series
of epidemiological studies by English and American researchers in the
early 1950s. If you ask when a medical consensus on this question
first arose, they will most likely point to the 1964 Surgeon General's
report, which took a strong stand on this question, or a similar
report by Britain's Royal College of Physicians two years earlier.

I have become convinced, however, that there was an earlier and
overlooked consensus, a consensus within the German medical and
scientific community, that emerged during the Nazi period. The Nazis
had a powerful anti-tobacco movement, arguably the most powerful in
the world at that time. Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists
fearing the corruption of the German "germ plasm" (i.e., genetic
material), by industrial hygienists fearing a reduction of people's
capacity to work, by nurses and midwives fearing harm to the "maternal
organism." Tobacco was said to be a "corrupting force in a rotting
civilization that has become lazy." The Nazis' anti-tobacco rhetoric
drew from an earlier generation's eugenics rhetoric and also reflected
an ethic of bodily purity and zeal for work.3 Tobacco use was attacked
as an "epidemic," a "plague," as "dry drunkenness," and as "lung
masturbation"; tobacco and alcohol abuses were "diseases of
civilization" and "relics of a liberal lifestyle."

Anti-tobacco research flourished in the Third Reich

Third Reich scientists also performed extensive work in the area of
occupational carcinogenesis. Physicians documented the health hazards
of asbestos, and in 1943 Germany became the first nation to recognize
lung cancer and mesothelioma caused by asbestos inhalation as
compensable occupational illnesses. Nazi Germany also pioneered what
we now call experimental epidemiology: two striking papers-a 1939
article by Franz H. Mueller of Cologne, and a 1943 paper by Eberhard
Schairer and Erich Schueniger of Jena-presented the most convincing
demonstrations up to that time that cigarettes were a major cause of
lung cancer. ..

How should we interpret such studies? How can we explain the fact that
Nazi Germany was home to the world's foremost tobacco-cancer
epidemiology and the world's strongest cancer prevention policy? Do we
say that "pockets of innovation" existed in Nazi Germany, resistant to
ideological influence?8 What if we find, on closer inspection, that
Germany's anti-tobacco research flourished not in spite of the Nazis,
but in large part because of the Nazis? And would it then be
appropriate, from a moral point of view, to cite such research in
scientific studies today?9

I ask this last question partly because the two tobacco studies I have
just discussed have, in fact, been repeatedly cited by postwar
scientific researchers, though rarely with any mention of the social
context within which they were carried out. There is never any
mention, for example, of the fact that the founding director of
Schueniger and Schairer's Institute was Karl Astel, Rector of the
University of Jena, a vicious racial hygienist, and an SS officer. One
never hears that the grant application for the Institute was written
by Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, chief organizer of Germany's system of
forced labor and a man hanged after the war for crimes against
humanity (most leaders of Nazi Germany's anti-tobacco movement were
silenced in one way or another after 1945). No mention is ever made of
the fact that funding for Astel's Institute, and therefore for
Schairer and Sch=F6niger's study, came from a gift of 100,000
Reichsmarks from the Fuehrer-himself an ardent anti-smoking activist.
It is clear to anyone who follows the money trail and the research
interests that Schairer and Schueniger's study would not have been
undertaken had it not been for Hitler's anti-tobacco sentiments and
those of his like-minded underlings. Hitler once even attributed the
rise of German fascism to his quitting smoking: the young
artist-architect had smoked a couple of packs a day until 1919, when
he threw his cigarettes into the Danube and never reached for them
again.

Again, how should we interpret such Nazi-era papers? How should we
judge the fact that Nazi ideology in this case (and there are others)
appears not to have hindered research, but actually to have promoted
it?

I raise the questions I do about Nazism and science because it is poor

scholarship and perhaps even dangerous to caricature the Nazis as

irrational or anti-science. What we have to look at more carefully is
the relationship between science and ideology at this time. It is not
the case, for example, that the papers on tobacco epidemiology I have
mentioned were uninfluenced by Nazi ideology. The Reich's anti-tobacco
program was motivated by Nazi ideals of bodily purity and racial
hygiene: there was a kind of "homeopathic paranoia" pervading Nazi
ideology that led many of its adherents to believe that tiny,
corrosive
elements were insinuating themselves into "the German body," sapping
its strength, causing harm. Appreciating this helps us understand how
Nazi science/ideologues could declare that tobacco tar, lead, mercury,
asbestos-and Jews-all posed a threat to the Nordic race. It also
may help us better understand why so many doctors were supporters of
Hitler's regime.

Why were German doctors such avid fans of fascism?

Why did nearly half of all German physicians join the Nazi party?

I don't think it was the tirades of Julius Streicher in Der Stuermer

that attracted their interest, but rather the promises of Nazi leaders
to solve Germany's problems medically, surgically. The Nazi state was
supposed to be a hygienic state; Nazism was supposed to be "applied
biology" (Fritz Lenz coined this phrase in 1931). Hitler was
celebrated
as the "great doctor" of German society and as the "Robert Koch of
politics" (Koch was a nineteenth century pioneer in studying the
bacterial origin of diseases). The seductive power of National
Socialism for many physicians lay in its promise to cleanse German

society of its corrupting elements-not just communism and Jews, but
also metallic lead and addictive tobacco, along with homosexuality.

The relation of science and politics in Nazi Germany was therefore
more complex than most people like to think. Part of the
misunderstanding, I would suggest, lies in the widely accepted belief
that when science is politicized, "real" science inevitably suffers:
the freedom of scientists is abrogated, distorting biases are
introduced into research, minds are closed, avenues of inquiry are
blocked. In many areas of science, of course, that is indeed what
happened in Nazi Germany; one thinks of the fate of Einstein's
relativity theory, for example. But in other areas-e.g., many areas of
public health- that was not the case at all.

Biology was another field that thrived. Ute Deichmann in her book,
Biologists Under Hitler (Harvard University Press, 1996), shows that
the majority of biologists in the Thirties and early Forties joined
the Nazi party; but it was still quite possible for non-Nazi
biologists to obtain grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
Germany's leading scientific grant agency. Not only possible but easy:
Deichmann discovered that there was no correlation at all between a
researcher receiving a grant and whether that researcher belonged to
the Nazi party. I would argue that biology prospered under the Nazis
because it was so integral to their worldview. Apart from the reasons
I have already discussed, there is the fact that Nazism placed a much
higher value on nature than on nurture in the development of human
talents and disabilities.

I am not sure I would agree with Deichmann that scientists in the
Third Reich were more independent of the regime than we usually think.

Independent research flourished in many fields but it was, after all,
also in the Nazi state's interest to cultivate a strong scientific
community, at least in certain disciplines. What is clearly wrong
about
the autonomy thesis, applied to science and medicine as a whole, is
that many professionals did not retreat into the purely technical. It
took a lot of medical enthusiasm to forcibly sterilize 350,000
Germans,

There is nothing inherently evil about physicians working and
cooperating with their government. The moral failure of the German
medical profession was its willingness to collaborate with the Nazi
state, its willingness to serve Nazi values. There is nothing wrong
with physicians working to preserve the health of a larger community;
that, after all, is the essence of responsible public health. What
differentiated National Socialist public health from genuine public
health in a reasonably civilized society was the exclusive nature of
what the Nazis considered "the community." Nazi values excluded Jews
and others deemed racially or genetically unfit from the volkisch
community...

It is just as misguided to believe that scientists who cooperated with
the Nazis were bereft of ethics as to believe the Nazis were
intrinsically hostile to science. There was an ethic of Nazi medical
practice, and it should be examined and understood.

It might be hard to believe, but there were, in fact, ethical
standards that governed medical research and the practice of medicine

in the Third Reich. Medical students took courses on medical ethics;
medical textbooks in Nazi Germany discussed medical ethics. There was
a great deal of attention given to the obligations of physicians to
society, the state, and sometimes even to the individual. Nazi medical
philosophers were critical of the ideal of value-free science, which
was often equated with useless ivory-tower liberal-or Jewish-

"science for its own sake." Science was supposed to be "for the
people," though not of course for all people: Science was supposed to
be at the service of the German Volk, the healthy and productive white
races of Europe. Nazi medical ethics was underpinned by sexist
paternalism, Nordic supremacy, cleanliness, punctuality, orderliness,
unquestioned obedience to authority, and public and environmental
health. It tended to emphasize preventive medicine, cost efficiency,
the natural lifestyle, and the superiority of the productive worker.
Clearly, Nazi medicine was imbued with ethical principles ..

One sees evidence of these principles in Nazi public health practice.
Nazi health officials cleaned up water supplies and removed lead and
mercury from consumer products. Doctors were urged to counsel patients
against tobacco use, to maintain the efficiency of workers, safeguard
public and genetic health, and ensure the best possible medical care
for every pregnant woman and newborns judged "genetically fit." There
were debates about medical malpractice-whether, for example, natural
healers were to be barred from treating cancer patients (they
eventually were) -- and the limits of medical confidentiality and
medical disclosure. A 1943 article in a leading German cancer journal
cited the "demands of medical ethics" to inform patients of the
severity of their diseases, and in at least one case a physician was
prosecuted for failing to inform a woman she had cancer (physicians
protested the ruling in print).

The Nazi doctors were not madmen; that is why we must work so hard to
understand the origins of Nazism if we are to have any success in
preventing its resurgence.

Robert N. Proctor is professor of the history of science at
Pennsylvania State University.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've
always worked for me'
(Hunter Thompson)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Oh just, subtle, and mighty opium!'
(Thomas de Quincey (1785 - 1859))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Topaz]

Dr Joseph Goebbels, Der Angriff, 21 January 1929.

The Jew
by Joseph Goebbels

Everything is discussed openly in Germany, and every German claims the
right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic,
the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a
capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing
dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question.
Discussions happen in public, and where matters are unclear or
confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is
one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate
even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a
scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like
water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at
how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've
been found out."

One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightening
speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any
attempt at defense.

Quickly he turns the attacker's charges back on him, and the attacker
becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be
more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants.
He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the
result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he
has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack. The accused
has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the
dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought
the Jew. That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully
aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the
following radical conclusions:

1. One cannot fight the Jew by positive means. He is a negative, and
this negative must be erased from the German system, or he will
forever corrupt it.

2. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can
hardly prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless.

3. One cannot allow the Jew the same means one would give an honest
opponent, for he is no honorable opponent. He will use generosity and
nobility only to trap his enemy.

4. The Jew has nothing to say about German questions. He is a
foreigner, an alien, who only enjoys the rights of a guest, rights
that he always abuses.

5. The so-called religious morality of the Jews is no morality at all,
rather an encouragement to betrayal. Therefore, they have no claim to
protection from the state.

6. The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only cleverer and
craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically-he follows
entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken
through political means.

7. A Jew cannot insult a German. Jewish slanders are but badges of
honor for a German opponent of the Jews.

8. The more a German person or a German movement opposes the Jew, the
more valuable it is. If someone is attacked by the Jews, that is a
sure sign of his virtue. He who is not persecuted by the Jews, or who
is praised by them, is useless and dangerous.

9. The Jew evaluates German questions from the Jewish standpoint. As a
result, the opposite of what he says must be true.

10. One must either affirm or reject anti-Semitism. He who defends the
Jews harms his own people. One can only be a Jewish lackey or a Jewish
opponent. Opposing the Jews is a matter of personal hygiene.
These principles give the anti-Jewish movement a chance of success.
Only such a movement will be taken seriously by the Jews, only such a
movement will be feared by them.

The fact that he shouts and complains about such a movement therefore
is only a sign that it is right. We are therefore delighted that we
are constantly attacked in the Jewish gazettes. They may shout about
terror. We answer with Mussolini's familiar words: "Terror? Never! It
is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just
as a doctor does to a bacterium.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones'
(Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<http://imageshack.us/f/402/topaz.jpg/>

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket'